Why isn't the fighter a social creature?

[Umbran]

There a lot of examples of wise and charismatic fighters. Leader of men.

Just to support my own point with your examples... There are a lot of examples of charismatic people who fight. That's not the same as saying they are members of the Fighter class. Pretty much all of them are high level characters, such that they could dip into another class for the abilities without crippling their effectiveness as warriors. In 3e terms, it'd be odd to consider a King Arthur who didn't have any Paladin levels, and Robin Hood could well have rogue mixed with his bow-ranger build.

Alexander the Great is better known for his tactical acumen than his personal fighting prowess - he wins wars more than he wins personal combats, so in 4e he's probably more a warlord than a fighter.

Come to think of it every fighter sub-class seem to have an air of charisma about them.

Barbarians are physically impressive and imposing, but not necessarily charismatic beyond that - if they get to use Strength to intimidate, then they're fine. Rangers are more known for being laconic loners, rather than charismatic leaders, no?

I also note that there are not too many examples in popular fiction of characters who aren't charismatic in some way. That's the nature of fiction, not the real nature of people, though. Characters in tales are free to be everything and a bag of chips, because outshining other characters doesn't cheese anyone off.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Alexander is, among other things, know for slaying a great lion at the tender age of fourteen armed with nothing more than a spear and a jockstrap! Warlord-shmorlord.

But in all fairness Alexander was followed by thousands of fighters who probably weren't great leaders at all.

 

[frankthedm]

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?

Hell yeah!

 

[Mallus]

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.

Something I came to appreciate about 2e's approach was they way skills didn't scale with level. A PC could be an expert at 1st level. Having PCs with a mix of exceptional, level-dependent skills (casting, thief skills) and more mundane skills they could excel in from the very start was nice.

There's no good reason for cooking and violin-playing to be level-dependent in D&D.

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

Probably not.

So here's my quick-and-dirty default skills system for 5e. At the base level of complexity, no skills/NWPs at all, just ability checks, d20 + ability score modifier.

Base DC = 10 for any skill/task that fits the PCs background/description, ie an aristocratic fighter trying to impress the princess with his courtly dance moves. DEX or CHA.

Base DC = 15 for any skill/task outside the PC's shtick, but still somewhat plausible, ie seeing if the same fighter knows anything useful about an powerful wizard who just kidnapped the princess-- hey, the fighter's rich, he can read, and his dad had a good library. INT.

Base DC = 20 for something completely left-field, ie the same fighter being able to recognize the wizard's magic warding rune on a ruined tower -- what do you know, the fighter was library was really good! INT.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

This is only a problem if one character has so many skill points (3E) or trained skills (4E) that they can have all the important skills. That is unlikely to be the case.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Alexander is, among other things, know for slaying a great lion at the tender age of fourteen armed with nothing more than a spear and a jockstrap! Warlord-shmorlord.

Well, by that way of thinking he wouldn't be a Fighter either, otherwise, he'd be wearing armor.

Believe or not, Warlords can actually fight. They *are* a melee class after all. So there's no reason to assume that any fighter has to be a Fighter, when they could just as easily be a Warlord, Rogue, or Dual-Wielding Ranger.

 

[Frostmarrow]

There's no good reason for cooking and violin-playing to be level-dependent in D&D.

If that was the case Gordon Ramsey would have like a thousand hit points!

This is only a problem if one character has so many skill points (3E) or trained skills (4E) that they can have all the important skills. That is unlikely to be the case.

True.

Well, by that way of thinking he wouldn't be a Fighter either, otherwise, he'd be wearing armor.

Believe or not, Warlords can actually fight. They *are* a melee class after all. So there's no reason to assume that any fighter has to be a Fighter, when they could just as easily be a Warlord, Rogue, or Dual-Wielding Ranger.

Yeah. Alexander pretty much defines Warlord. But if warlord is dropped he's back to being a fighter again. You will rue the day.

 

[Mallus]

If that was the case Gordon Ramsey would have like a thousand hit points!

Heh... Gordon Ramsey might be on the one chef who *did* get his cooking skill through combat!

 

[Hassassin]

So here's my quick-and-dirty default skills system for 5e. At the base level of complexity, no skills/NWPs at all, just ability checks, d20 + ability score modifier. [...]

DC stands for Difficulty Class. It makes no sense to me to vary it based on the character's competence. You'd at least want to rename it, but then why turn that particular mechanic around, when everything else adds skill and ability to your roll?

Your mechanic is really no different from 3e/4e, except much less granular, and level independent. So you might as well make it into a +5 or +10 bonus to the roll and use static DCs.

 

[SKyOdin]

Throughout history and all manners of works of fiction, warriors have been social creatures. The knights of Europe were members of the aristocracy, part of a courtly culture who engaged in complex social rituals such as tournament s that were full of pageantry and complex social custom. The germanic and nordic warriors of old would gather in great halls to dine and sing together. Around the world there are examples of famous warrior-poets or warrior-authors. Even on a practical level, a grizzled mercenary needs to know how to effectively sell himself to prospective employers. Song, courtly manners, poetry, simple socializing and networking, these were all parts of what it meant to be a professional warrior.

By their very nature, Fighters tend to gather in groups. They form teams, throw parties in taverns, swap stories, and get drunk together. On the other hand, the wizard archetype has always been that of the loner, the strange hermit living in his tower in the woods. The cleric is split between the proselytizing priest and the contemplative monk locked in his monastery, and neither is expected to be seen singing drunken songs in the bar. Of the four classic classes, only the rogue can match the fighter's claim to social talent, and even then it is of a more secretive, hidden nature.