Why isn't the fighter a social creature?

[Hassassin]

In PF, all a Fighter with diplomacy or bluff loses is a +3 bonus from class skill. It is easy for at least human fighters to be social - just don't dump charisma and max the ranks of some skill(s).

 

[ExploderWizard]

The fighter has been pigeonholed more and more with each passing edition.

This is due to pure numbers bloat and a fixation on mechanical specializations.

The old D&D fighting man was always all about action. Social concerns were still important in order to attract followers and become a successful ruler in the endgame. Your fighter could be whatever you imagined, and fight with any weapon as needed, a true man (or woman) at arms.

Along comes proficiency slots limiting the weapons you can use competently to a handful. The one thing fighters had was ultimate martial skill. AD&D removed that paring down known weapons to a mere 4.

Then we have specialization enter the picture. Now you can give up even more of your meager versatility for math busting bonuses with your chosen weapon. As an added bonus, others get to see you cry like a little girl when your particular weapon isn't available for use. The all around action man has now become a one trick pony because anything else would be mathematically unwise.

We move on as the game changes yet again. The math has been adjusted now to not only account for but assume hyper specialization. In addition we have feats and skills to choose to further limit what is possible to scribblings on a character sheet. In addition to weapon spec., you can choose various feat trees to ensure that doing anything outside your narrowly chosen path will earn you a trip to remedial survival school.

The game continues to evolve, wrapping the fighting more tightly in its web of specialization. We awake to a world where our job is to wear heavy armor and incite bad guys to beat on us like a pinata while our old buddy the thief puts the smackdown on them with martial skills that make ours look like the amatuer hour.

Can we wake up from this nightmare in 5E and bring back the fighting man?

 

[Wormwood]

But still, classes aren't straight jackets - before the skill system, if you wanted to play silent, brooding, monosyllabic warrior, fine. But you could also play a charming, dashing musketeer type - it was up to you how to play it, not the game mechanics.

Which is *precisely* why I would prefer D&D have only the most rudimentary of skill systems---if one at all.

 

[Henry]

Maybe fighters should get access to strong social abilities and skills? Historically fighters have always been loveable in spite of their bloody trade. Fighters in fiction are often destined to be kings.

My take differs with this. Historically, the best fighters usually have regents or advisors when it comes to diplomacy and social courtliness. The ones who were skilled at diplomacy in actual fights were decent, but not physically awesome. There were a few exceptions, but generally speaking the most charismatic weren't skilled enough to keep themselves from being killed when the assassins came. One famous pairing, Octavian and Marcus Agrippa, was in the exact opposite order -- Octavian was the awesome statesman, but the majority of his military wins were from Agrippa, and the two were inseparable unto death, partly because they complemented each other so perfectly.

In game terms, I think it's a balance trade off -- just how even sorcerers, the most charismatic of spellcasters, aren't skilled in diplomacy or intimidation, and wizards aren't good at pretty much anything outside of a book.

 

[Umbran]

Because the system is too rigid. Some fighters should be able to be good at social skills.

That may be true for 1e and 2e. In 4e, the "fighter" can be a warlord. In 3e he can take the occasional level of rogue to get those charisma based skills.

Our own thinking is often too rigid. We could do with less asking, "Why cannot <favorite class> do <thing I want to do> and instead ask, "What classes do I need to use to build a character that can do X?"

We are more flexible when we remove the class as the basis for the character concept, and instead have a character concept that we put into practice using classes as building blocks.

 

[Frostmarrow]

My take differs with this. Historically, the best fighters usually have regents or advisors when it comes to diplomacy and social courtliness. The ones who were skilled at diplomacy in actual fights were decent, but not physically awesome. There were a few exceptions, but generally speaking the most charismatic weren't skilled enough to keep themselves from being killed when the assassins came. One famous pairing, Octavian and Marcus Agrippa, was in the exact opposite order -- Octavian was the awesome statesman, but the majority of his military wins were from Agrippa, and the two were inseparable unto death, partly because they complemented each other so perfectly.

In game terms, I think it's a balance trade off -- just how even sorcerers, the most charismatic of spellcasters, aren't skilled in diplomacy or intimidation, and wizards aren't good at pretty much anything outside of a book.

Henry VIII was a statesman, a fighter, and a lover. Arthur was always a wise ruler even though he had Merlin. Sometimes Arthur was the wiser of the two. Conan of course, but he had an ounce of plot immunity. Roland. Robin Hood. Alexander The Great. There a lot of examples of wise and charismatic fighters. Leader of men.

In a tight class structure; fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard I think the fighter is the obvious leader choice. Maybe that's just me. I suspect the birth of bards, paladins, cavaliers, and warlords is due to the fighter not being strong enough in the social arena. Come to think of it every fighter sub-class seem to have an air of charisma about them.

I'm a wizard player myself so this is not a cry out for more power to my favorite class.

 

[Dausuul]

My take on it is that we should simply get rid of class skills. I've never seen any compelling reason to arbitrarily punish certain classes for learning certain skills. A fighter trained in Arcana is not going to break the game.

 

[Mallus]

That may be true for 1e and 2e.

2e had the Etiquette NWP. It was in the 'general' list, so a fighter could take it.

In both of those games, the most important part of being a 'social fighter' is saying the right things in character, followed by a high CHA, which set NPCs initial reaction to a PC.

I'd say the biggest enemy of the 'social fighter' --mechanically-speaking-- is the standard point-buy array found in later editions.

 

[Frostmarrow]

My take on it is that we should simply get rid of class skills. I've never seen any compelling reason to arbitrarily punish certain classes for learning certain skills. A fighter trained in Arcana is not going to break the game.

By all means but here is something to keep in mind. A party of adventurers should together be about as well rounded as a single hero in fiction. If all characters have (access to) the same skills they don't have to rely on each other anymore. The division into classes is about sharing the game experience. This means a game hero is less capable than a movie hero. A game hero is not able to function on his own. And that's a good thing in a gaming group.

When a gaming group makes characters for the game they will in some extent try to cover all bases. There will be a defender, a striker, a "leader" and a controller. By the same token a group should try to cover the different skills among all of them. Is this something that should come with the class package or is it feasible to make two such group divisions? An outer and an inner wheel.

 

[Frostmarrow]

2e had the Etiquette NWP. It was in the 'general' list, so a fighter could take it.

In both of those games, the most important part of being a 'social fighter' is saying the right things in character, followed by a high CHA, which set NPCs initial reaction to a PC.

I'd say the biggest enemy of the 'social fighter' --mechanically-speaking-- is the standard point-buy array found in later editions.

Very interesting. The NWP-system allowed for diverse characters, and there was no risk you would be left behind in the ever increasing race for higher bonus vs. DCs.

I'm fairly certain WoTC won't drop the unified d20-mechanic though.