D&D 5E yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options

[FrogReaver]

If a rule is interfering or impeding roleplay (as in the case of your scenario) then the DM should change the rule. It doesn't make sense one player is playing the macho, brawny fighter and the other is playing the scrawny weirdo sorcerer, and the beer drinking, fist throwing, bar room brawling fighter should not be trying to intimidate people because the rules say the high charisma sorcerer gets a better die roll. Everyone should do what they want to do, but that doesn't even make sense when you think about how this would play if it was a scene in a movie. That was a rule which clearly wasn't thought through.

I think too many see high or low bonuses and take that to mean some character is better at something than another. In a typical session intimidation is likely to come up relatively few times. It's conceivable that the fighter with 8 charisma could roll high on every one of those checks and the sorcerer roll low and thus in the in-game fiction the fighter would actually be more intimidating than the high charisma sorcerer. Character stats don't tell the story. Player choices and die rolls do. In fact it's conceivable that the fighter could roll better intimidation checks than the sorcerer for the whole campaign despite the sorcerer having a higher intimidation. Who would you say was better at intimidation if this occurred?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If a rule is interfering or impeding roleplay (as in the case of your scenario) then the DM should change the rule.

Agreed.

It doesn't make sense one player is playing the macho, brawny fighter and the other is playing the scrawny weirdo sorcerer, and the beer drinking, fist throwing, bar room brawling fighter should not be trying to intimidate people because the rules say the high charisma sorcerer gets a better die roll. Everyone should do what they want to do, but that doesn't even make sense when you think about how this would play if it was a scene in a movie.

Nevertheless, as weird as it seems, that's simply not the reality they're living in. Until such time as the DM actually changes the rule, that's just how things work, and they have to deal with it.

That was a rule which clearly wasn't thought through.

I wouldn't go that far. There are a lot of factors that go into designing a skill system, and they had other priorities.

It was more important for them to implement Bounded Accuracy, so that anyone could attempt a skill check even if they weren't trained in it, and that put a limit on how high your Proficiency bonus could go. If they wanted a trained fighter to be better at intimidation than an untrained warlock, then they would need the Proficiency bonus to start at +6 and go to +10; but then a trained warlock would end up with +15 to their checks, which means they'd need to face DC 25 checks in order to have a reasonable chance of failing, but DC 25 is out of reach of a fighter who isn't trained. And they couldn't reduce the +5 from the ability score, because that's the core of how the stat system works, ever since third edition.

Honestly, the skill system isn't terrible, given the constraints that they're working with. It would have helped if fighters had some other reason to care about Charisma, though.

 

[TarionzCousin]

One thing is clear. You definitely need more non-combat options if beating a dead horse is all you can do. And more effective combat options.

Two things. Two things are clear. You definitely need more non-combat options. And more effective combat options if beating a dead horse is all you can do. Etc.

/MontyPython

Five is right out!

 

[5ekyu]

Controversial opinion: the fighter should be a 3-skill class, like the ranger and bard. The fighter's skill list is practical and useful and mostly exploration-focused. A third skill won't erode anyone's niche -- the bard gets expertise and broader skill choice, while the ranger gets Natural Explorer and spellcasting and some other goodies. Plus, it makes sense that the fighter, whose utility comes from training of mundane abilities, would be able to pick up an additional skill.

I feel the same way about the barbarian (who has similar issues to the fighter in terms of "not that useful outside of combat") and to a lesser extent the monk and warlock (who have plenty of stuff to do outside of combat, but story-wise, it makes sense to me that they'd have more skills than clerics, wizards, paladins, etc.).

"Controversial opinion: the fighter should be a 3-skill class, like the ranger and bard. "

My counter-position is that at sixth level if the fighter spend their bonus asi/feat on that much maligned feat called "skilled " their number of skills known beat most at thst level as far as skill from class goes.

Also, consider even if not using feats a higher ability score bonus is gonna be similar to a proficiency especially in the early and mid-game.

Does one more proficiency taken in survival or perception or perform (assuming modest investment in that ability score) give a fight character "more to do" than say using that sixth level ASI not on Mo' Strength than 9n a higher wisdom (+1 to survival, insight, perception and saves vs +3 with percrption) or higher Cha (+1 with Perform, Deception, Persyasion, Perform and saves vs +3 Perform.)

To me, the extra ASI **are** the fighters versatility to meet "who is this guy and what does he do" and its when those get "automatic" assigned to combat boosts that the fighter's lack of other stuff starts really rearing its head.

 

[Hussar]

I've long been on the bandwagon that fighters could use a little more loving. Not a huge amount. I don't find the "you get extra feats" argument all that compelling since those actually don't really come in until fairly late. I mean, by 8th level, sure, you've got 3 feats to everyone's 2, but, meh, after the first two choices, it's gravy anyway. Not generally something that's going to be character forming.

And the idea that I should be taking ritual caster so I can turn my fighter into Mr. Wizard does not solve it for me. I am playing a fighter specifically so that I'm NOT casting spells. If I wanted to cast spells, I'd play a ranger or paladin. 5e is high magic enough.

Honestly, I think if we took the battle master, and added a handful of out of combat maneuvers that could be powered by superiority dice, that would largely do the trick. Or, heck, make it simple. Battlemasters can add a superiority die to a skill check when out of combat. Poof, done. That would bring fighters well into the game for doing the other two pillars and leaves the Champions for those who don't want to deal with mechanical complexity.

I'm not sure why this has become such a contested issue though. Every time it gets brought up, people act like someone just said something nasty. It's not a big deal. Some people want a fighter that's got a bit more oomph out of combat. We're not judging how you play at all. Honest.

 

[Guest 6801328]

...
Anyway, I'm bringing this up because during our last session, of the players said he felt like he didn't have much to do out of combat. While my bard and the warlock were sneaking and scouting, listening at doors, searching bookshelves, and translating tomes, he was looking for options to contribute. In another group we play in, this player is a wizard and feels like he has more versatility in and out of combat.

I know what the replies will be: use your background skills, role-play your character, you can skill use skills you aren't proficient in, etc. I get it, I really do. And I don't disagree. But that hasn't been enough to fully convince me Fighters wouldn't do well with something else.

...

Apologies if I'm interpreting this wrong, but these two paragraphs evoke for me the image of players announcing they are going to "use skills", and maybe even rolling dice before the DM calls for it. ("I'll make an Investigation check...17! Do I find anything?")

I can see how, playing under the assumptions of previous editions, it might feel like the Fighter has a harder time contributing. But it doesn't have to be that way.

But when we let players declare goals and describe how they do it, and as DMs we only ask for dice rolls when the outcome is in doubt, then everybody can participate out of combat. If the player of any character...including the Fighter...proposes a reasonable/clever/sensible course of action, the DM is free to just narrate success, no dice roll needed.

"I'm going to use the distraction of the Dwarves arguing to slip upstairs to search the Bard's room."
"Ok."
"Roll Stealth?"
"Nope. You're fine. You're in the Bard's room. You see..." etc.

See? Why does it add to the story to make him roll Stealth in this case? It was a sensible idea and it advances the story to just let him succeed.

Or maybe the DM decides that it's an automatic failure, because an NPC is suspicious of them and is watching, and there's no way anybody is going to get up the stairs unseen. So it's the same narration as before, but this time the NPC bursts in while the Fighter is rifling through the Bard's room.

Or maybe the Fighter's player says when he gets to the top of the stairs he lurks in the shadows, waiting to see if he's followed. Another sensible course of action, so this time he finds the NPC creeping up after him! Again, no dice roll needed.

Then maybe he decides to pounce on the NPC and find out who he is and what he's doing. Then, finally, the dice rolling might start. And...oh joy!...he has proficiency in Intimidation and Athletics!

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's like you didn't even read what I said...

It doesn't even seem to be a response to what you wrote, does it?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think a lot of the way people feel about this issue is based on our gaming experience.

For example, I grew up playing 1e and B/X, so my reaction when reading a lot of replies on this topic (not just this thread) that argue the fighter needs abilities to do things out of combat is along the lines of “By that logic, no one did anything in 1e out of combat, because there were no skills or powerz for it, and obviously that’s not true, so that argument doesn’t really hold water.”

 

[Hussar]

I think a lot of the way people feel about this issue is based on our gaming experience.

For example, I grew up playing 1e and B/X, so my reaction when reading a lot of replies on this topic (not just this thread) that argue the fighter needs abilities to do things out of combat is along the lines of “By that logic, no one did anything in 1e out of combat, because there were no skills or powerz for it, and obviously that’s not true, so that argument doesn’t really hold water.”

Well, yeah. Of course. Back then, all we did was start at A in the Monster Manual and fight our way through Z.

A little less tongue in cheek though, even back in the day, any contribution your fighter was making was pretty much outside of the actual mechanics of the game. Because, frankly, there were so few mechanics for dealing with out of combat stuff back then. Intimidate the prisoner? Umm, roll a d20 and we'll see what happens... was a common refrain back then.

 

[Eubani]

Fighters have sacrificed nearly all exploration and social ability to be the best at combat. The problem with this is that the fighter despite this sacrifice is not the best at combat and is a bit behind till 11th level where it pulls ahead by a small amount. Problem is that according to WotC stats the average game goes up to 12th level.

Many trot out the over used line of "the player should role play better". Guess which other classes can do that? All of them and they have abilities/spells to back it up.

Next we have the "but fighters get 2 extra feats" brigade. The feats are gained at 6th and 14th which means in the average game (according to WotC) the Fighter only gets 1 mid game. Then there is the fact that the fighter uses those feats to try and keep up in combat let alone patch up near none existence in exploration or social, there is only so much pie to go around.

It seems that too many have taken in the 40 years of brainwashing that fighters cannot have nice things. It's amazing how much noise is made when someone suggests the fighter should get a new toy. I also think that the 5e fighter suffers from having to fit both the simple and the "Advanced" subclasses on to the same chassis. Many would say that there are enough classes but if you look at how many caster classes there are would 1 more martial really hurt. Now excuse me whilst I get my chalice ready to catch all the Grognard and spellcaster supremist tears, they are tasty.