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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

For myself, I'd give advantage to the one who first told me that he was persuading the guy. If the fighter's player told me that he was doing it, the warlock would be giving the fighter advantage if he helped.

And...to flog this dead horse...if either character narrated/acted an especially compelling argument that I thought would be effective on the NPC, I wouldn't require a roll. (To be clear: I'm not evaluating the quality of the voice acting, nor even 'what the NPC would do', but just 'does it make a good story if the NPC does/doesn't find this persuasive?')

Thus, in some sub-set of cases (those in which the outcome is in doubt for the DM) the +5 warlock is 10% more persuasive than the +3 fighter.

And yet some people interpret that to mean that the fighter is useless outside of combat.

 

[Quickleaf]

I am taking full responsibility that I am beating a dead horse.

I am in the camp that Fighters could use something else in the social or exploration category. I won't die on a hill for it but I see the need.

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.

So while I was looking at the PHB this morning, I had a thought: what if the Champion's Remarkable Athlete and the Battle Master's Know Your Enemy were part of the base Fighter progression?

First of all, that Remarkable Athlete is the 7th level Champion ability is ridiculous. It feels like a bad feat, or at least combined with the Athlete feat. I could also see any of the martial classes having access to an ability like this.

Second, Know Your Enemy is extremely iconic for the warrior archetype. Sizing up your opponent has many references in movies, literature, etc. It's also something unique to the fighter from the other classes.

These would give the base fighter an additional option in both the social and exploration areas.

Neither of these abilities is a "balance" issue in my mind per se. They do give the fighter more trinkets and I know one of the goals of the fighter is simplicity so I guess that could be a thing. *shrugs*

Anyway, just sharing some quick thoughts!

So I previously explained how I'd approach any effort to enhance the fighter, specifically in regards to class as a lens into worlds of D&D implying sub-culture connection. However, I didn't get into the nuts and bolts of your proposition.

First, define the narrative identity you wish to introduce for the fighter. You mentioned wanting to enhance out-of-combat versatility, but your two ideas seem to aim for different themes. Remarkable Athlete is kind of an "action hero" identity, whereas Know Your Enemy is a "cool tactician" identity, or am I mistaken? Also, Know Your Enemy really is a pre-combat ability, not an out-of-combat social one, right? It lets you evaluate combat info: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, AC, HP, and (fighter) class levels. So there is an issue at the identity level. To me that's an indication of needing to go back to the drawing board and really get clear on what you want.

Second, note where new feature would best fit into the fighter's existing framework. There is a great blog post on Loot the Body which is worth a read. In short, the fighter is probably missing a 2nd-level class feature compared to other classes. That's a clear window of opportunity for whatever you wish to implement.

 

[GlassJaw]

You know, I actually agree that the fighter could use some stuff; not because its not possible for a player to use background stuff and whatnot to make themselves useful outside of combat, but because if a new player comes in with a fighter and doesn't use that stuff, they're kind of out of luck! I noticed it because I have a new player who's playing a fighter; he's awesome in combat, but sits like a bump on a log during anything else (unless its triggering a trap, since he's got the most HP).

This! Very well said. I think this is definitely part of what I'm seeing at the table. The fighter could use something that sparks the player to get involved when not in combat. Here are some quick ideas I threw together:

Teamwork: Grant a number of allies equal to your proficiency bonus advantage on a group ability check
Guard Duty: Gain advantage on next Passive Perception check against an ambush
Mentor: If you spend 1 min with an ally, grant advantage to that ally on their next untrained skill check that you are proficient in
Dig Deep: Grant advantage to ally on Constitution check against environmental effects
Improvise: Gain advantage on a tool check to craft or repair something in the field (this needs work but you get the idea)

I would let the player choose one of these at 1st or 2nd level and probably more later on. Each would work 1/short rest.

/quick brainstorm

 

[Mistwell]

Here is where I really struggle with this issue. It's a matter of rules being the source of role playing vs rules getting in the way of it. That's not a precise way of putting it, so let me explain.

OD&D (1974) had very few rules which themselves supported out of combat challenges, aside from traps. If you wanted to persuade an NPC to do something - you just had to persuade them with the players role playing it. There was sometimes a Charisma check, sometimes not, but no skills. And if you wanted to climb a wall, you might make a Dexterity check, or maybe the DM would just make a ruling based on what you said you did to try and make the climb (until the Thief class was published). But the bottom line was, baring magic (which was more rare) everyone just did stuff out of combat by trying their best to explain what their PC was doing, sometimes in character, and the DM just made the call. And that system functioned just fine and was fun.

Over the years and various editions we've gotten more PC abilities which suppport of out combat adventuring, which codify how those challenges are overcome. Which I don't dislike - I think those rules have often added something to the game. However, it also defines how things are done which means some alternative methods of doing those same things become more difficult to pull off. It's not that you can no longer persuade the DM to accept your superb role playing of the PC to influence an intimidation role (you can) it's just that you will be rolling a Charisma (Intimidation) check against a fixed or rolled DC as part of this and you will not likely be able to simple role play it out without such a check (though it's possible - just less likely). And of course carry that philosophy across hundreds of types of challenges.

A bard PC (for example) has a lot of rules-based support for out of combat checks. They get lots of skill training (any three to start, plsu some tools). They get jack of all trades to add to that skill training. They get expertise in two more skills. Their abilty bonuses (dex and charisma) tend to have more skills tied off of them than a fighters skills (strength and constitution). They get bardic inspiration to use on skill checks. They have spells and rituals from early levels which can influence skill checks (Friends, Prestidigitation, Animal Friendship, Speak with Animals, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Feather Fall, Illusory Script, etc..), the bottom line is they have a ton of rules-based support to influence out of combat skill challenges.

And when that character is in the game, it becomes more difficult for the player of a Fighter PC to try and do the same things as the Bard PC while lacking that rules-based support for those same actions. The Fighter's player could try and befriend the bear the party encounters, but they will be left making an untrained Animal Handling check while the Bard could be speaking to the bear with a spell, charming an animal with a spell, disguising himself in a more bear-friendly visage with a spell, or making a check which is more likely to be trained (or even with expertise) but even if it's not they will be able to use Jack Of All Trades to help with the check.

So that's my conflict. In an edition like this one with a fair amount of rules-based support for out of combat actions, the DM is in a more difficult position to adjudicate simply well-role-played actions when another PC may well have rules-based abilities for that very type of check.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In my opinion, the bolded portion is the problem, not fighter class. When we want to convince the DM of something, even though I'm better at persuasion than the rest of the group, we all contribute in the conversation. Why? Because we're people and people want to be heard, even if their bonuses aren't as high as the next guy.

In real life, a group making an argument can be more persuasive than an individual. In the game world, it isn't necessarily so. (Or if the DM implements Advantage in that case, then that's how the game world actually works; and the characters would behave accordingly, since they actually live in that world.)

Or maybe everyone is arguing a different point, in which case everyone should be making an attempt, because nobody else is on their side. One of the assumptions behind the fighter being useless out-of-combat is that everyone is working toward the same goal; although, admittedly, that's a pretty safe assumption for the really important checks. If you're pretty decent at making non-essential skill rolls, though, then that's not anything to write home about. In much the same way, the paladin's burst damage is seen as a balance problem, and the ranger's horde-slaying is not, because the outcome of unimportant actions are not very meaningful.

If you stop treating your character like a piece in the game, and start treating him more like a person in the game,[...]

If you stop treating your character like a person who live in the real world, and start treating them like a person who lives in the game world, then your belief about how the real world works wouldn't corrupt the way they make decisions. Meta-gaming is explicitly against the rules.

[...] you will stop having an issue of not being able to participate meaningfully in non-combat as a fighter.

I guess that goes down to your definition of "meaningfully".

 

[GlassJaw]

So that's my conflict. In an edition like this one with a fair amount of rules-based support for out of combat actions, the DM is in a more difficult position to adjudicate simply well-role-played actions when another PC may well have rules-based abilities for that very type of check.

Great post. Extremely well said and probably a lot better than I've stated my position in this thread. The thing is, 5E does a really job of balancing the rules vs. role-playing dilemma, and definitely better than 3rd and 4rd edition (which were much more mechanics and number-heavy). However, the "problem" still exists.

I also wonder if the fact that because 5E is a bit more streamlined, when there is a discrepancy, is it a bit more apparent.

Anyway, this brings me back to my previous post. A class like the Fighter needs a nudge in the non-combat skill department for these reasons.

 

[CubicsRube]

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] perhaps on that discussion then there could be a theives cant like feature for fighters?

Say level 1 - military connections. You have come to know people within mercenary and military groups far and wide. When you arrive in a new place, you can ask the gm if you know somebody there. That person may not necessarily be friendly.

Something like that.

Makes sense to me that a fighting man either has travelled a lot themselves, or they've met people who have.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6848185]CubicsRube[/MENTION] Totally, something along those lines would make a lot of sense thematically, and it avoids pigeon-holing fighter players too much. You could play a totally free-wheeling swashbuckler type who still knows people through "military connections" because of the many nights he spent sobering up in jail, enchanting the guards and fellow lock-ups alike with his tales and charm. It serves as a nice springboard for the player's creativity, and gives new players a lens through which to view the worlds of D&D.

The trick is pinning down language that would feel at home in a class, as opposed to the more vague language used in background features. And also not making it overlap the design space of background features.

What I like about that approach, placing such a social-based feature at level 1, is that it right away encourages players to see the campaign world through a lens. As opposed to older editions of D&D where a fighter player was expected to mature into the "baron/lord" lens.

...

As a follow-up though, back when I realized that fighter & rogue classes only had 1 feature at 2nd-level – compared to other classes with 2-3 features (or a subclass choice) – I thought that both could use a flavorful narrative feature. Nothing powerful. Designers had a clever name for such features, but I can't recall it at the moment. So I brainstormed this for rogues to bolster their exploration potency:

[SECTION]Decipher Script. Starting at 2nd-level, you gain the ability to puzzle out a vague impression of any writing, glyphs, or maps you come across. At a minimum, you recognize what language the writing is in, whether it’s finished or incomplete, and what its general purpose is (e.g. deed, kill list, magical protection, prophecy, spell scroll, treasure map, will).[/SECTION]

The idea being that, yes, a wizard could cast comprehend languages and just read it, but that a rogue can do this all day long and – without technically reading magical writing or detecting magic – would be aware of magically warded writing.

If I were to make small-changes-for-maximum-effect to the fighter, I'd probably go with a version of your 1st level "Military Connections" feature, and then some kind of 2nd level exploration-based feature.