All Classes should have something to contribute out of combat.

Fighters and Barbarians are both sadly lacking in out of combat ability.  There are tons of things that could be offered.

For interaction there could be social boons.  Ranks in military or tribal positions.  Perhaps a string of contacts spread across the region due to your travels.  Reputation and/or noteriety both could provide interesting benefits.  Official sanction could allow for legal powers where appropriate.

For exploration, class features might allow STR checks to manually interfere with traps through brute force.  Features akin to 4E's martial practices might be offerred or implemented.

I just think that non-rogue mundanes ought to have more options out of combat.
For interaction there could be social boons.  Ranks in military or tribal positions.  Perhaps a string of contacts spread across the region due to your travels.  Reputation and/or noteriety both could provide interesting benefits.  Official sanction could allow for legal powers where appropriate.


Would these be limited to fighters?  Otherwise, it just sounds like Background benefits that any character could take and then fighters still don't get anything unique.  If it is limited, then I'd have a problem with the class being shoehorned into a specific archtype (and other classes being shoehorned out).








Edited to add: I'm outlining the various arguments and refutations that have been hashed out in this thread.

ARGUMENT 1 (Hobson's Choice Argument): Players choose the fighter or barbarian knowing they are weak in Interaction. 

REFUTATION 1.a: If there is no viable class that allows a heavily armored or rage-filled warrior who can participate meaningfully in Interaction, then it is a Hobson's choice because there is no way to play a perfectly viable character concept.

RESPONSE 1.a.i. (Warlord speculation): The warlord class may fill this void.

REFUTATION 1a.i.A: We have seen no warlord class and thus have no idea if it will fill the void.



ARGUMENT 2 (Opportunity Cost Argument): Players can boost their fighters' and barbarians' Interaction through Backgrounds, Specialties, or sacrficing physical Abilities for mental Abilities.

REFUTATION 2.a: If other classes need not use these non-class mechanics to participate meaningfully in all three pillars, then the fighter and barbarian are subject to an opportunity cost to which other classes are not subject.

RESPONSE 2.a.i (Goalpost Shifting Rogue): The rogue is not "equal" to the fighter without two feats.

REFUTATION 2.a.i.A: "Equal" is not the appropriate standard.  The rogue can contribute to combat meaningfully without any feats.

RESPONSE 2.a.ii. (The Spell Gambit): Spellcasters have to choose the right spells to meaningfully participate in combat, exploration, or interaction

REFUTATION 2.a.ii.A: Spells are a class mechanic.  Spellcasters can use the same Backgrounds and Specialties that fighters and barbarians are required to take and they still have a decent chance of selecting the appropriate spells.



ARGUMENT 3 (The "Meaningful" Quibble): Fighters and Barbarians can participate meaningfully in Interaction with unmodified Ability checks

REFUTATION 3.a: Few people seem to think unmodified Ability checks constitute meaningful participation.

REFUTATION 3.b: With respect to fighters and barbarians, they are additionally burdened by the fact that their class Abilities require them to place their highest Abilities in Strength, Constitution and/or Dexterity, the three Abilities utilized the leastin Interaction.  So, even compared to other characters' unmodified Ability checks, the fighter and barbarian will be participating in a less meaningful way than other characters who rely on nothing more than unmodified ability checks.

RESPONSE 3.b.i.: You should use your physical abilities "creatively", such as impressing people with feats of Strength or using Dexterity to wow people with your ballroom dancing skills.

REFUTATION 3.b.i.A.: Such corner cases cannot constitute meaningful participation as they are neither reliable nor particularly credible means of persuasion.

RESPONSE 3.b.i.A.1.: Using Strength to intimidate would not be a corner case.

REFUTATION 3.b.i.A.1.a.: But making a character a one-trick pony would not be meaningful participation either, particularly where the one trick involves negative reinforcement which excludes team-oriented solutions of persuasion. A character who runs around intimidating everything is not generally "playing nice" with the other team members who may want to engage in a softer style of Interaction.  When you give the fighter and barbarian only a hammer, they're going to treat everything like a nail.

REFUTATION 3.c: Skill tricks, spells, and rituals dwarf the impact on the Interaction compared to unmodified Ability checks  


ARGUMENT 4 (Let's Play Pretend): Interaction could be resolved entirely without mechanics, so there's no need for interaction mechanics.

REFUTATION 4.a.: Since the game is including mechanics for the Interaction Pillar, the game presumes that such mechanics should be used.  We cannot simply bury our heads in the sand to avoid an uncomfortable issue.
I would much rather see every class gain about 3-4 skill "utility" abilities over the course of their adventuring career. These would be non-combat boons based on training in a particular skill. Athletics based ones could be lifting massive objects, breaking down solid doors/walls, leaping great distances, etc. Persuasion based ones could be non magically charming or fascinating individuals. Intimidation could allow you to stun or freighten others. This way all classes would gain some non-combat capability.


Also, fighters and barbarians should get bonus skills just like wizards, clerics, and rogues. In fact, i think it would be better if everyone started with 5 trained skills regardless of class. Don't shoehorn a class into the skill monkey role. The rogue can be the "skilled" class because he gets better results (through skill mastery) not because he has 2x as many skills as the fighter.  
I think the shoe-horning could be avoided by having a few options for each class.  For instance, a fighter who didn't want to have a traveller backstory could instead have deeper ties to narrower region or organization, such as a military company, a city guard, a school of swordsmanship, etc.  Every back story worth a darn is going to have somebody you're connected to, who taught you how to use those weapons and armors you're the master of and gave you your first taste of real combat experience.  While that's true of non-fighters too, you can argue that the level of esprit de corps you're calling on to make this a class feature is "fighter only" because that level of loyalty is pretty much limited to those who have put their lives in each other's hands, and even the company wizard/warlord is an outsider to the grunts.

But yeah, at some level it's going to be hard to justify saying that one set of mundane characters can do something another set of mundane characters cannot.  Personally, I'd rather completely arbitrarily say that only fighters can do this than leave fighters with nothing to do.
Man how many times are you guys gunna restart the same topics.
Man how many times are you guys gunna restart the same topics.



Personally, I'm going to ask that it be addressed with each playtest packet, as it is still an issue.

That said, i'd like to see a mixture of skills and bonus background elements that tie into the character's backstory and place in the campaign. 

I want to offer characters the opportunity to have a range of options, including but not limited to trained skills.

Maybe fighters should just receive 2 backgrounds instead of other classes one.

Perhaps it would work better to build backgrounds that fit fighters, but then layer on fighter specific boons as the character levels and grows in prestige and fame.  Anyone can be a veteran, but a veteran fighter can call on favors due to his class that others might not (at least without feat expenditure). 

I'm all for brainstorming, but I think that we're currently not offerning fighters and rogues much to do outside of combat, and I don't think that is acceptable.
Why?

Seriously, why?

Why should classes contribute anything out of combat?  What's wrong with establishing class as something that relates only to combat, and that non-combat things are handled by other character structures?

Doing this would sidestep all the combat/noncombat balance problems that classes have had in every edition ever, allow for more flexible and fluid character concept realization, and overall I think do a hell of a lot to improve things.

Now, if this were the case, then those other structures would have to step up their game, because right now they're dominated by classes in every way.  But I think it's worth asking the question:  are classes the best way to describe and represent noncombat capability?  I'm not sure defaulting to "yes" is a good thing. 

Discuss?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Why?

Seriously, why?

Why should classes contribute anything out of combat?  What's wrong with establishing class as something that relates only to combat, and that non-combat things are handled by other character structures?

Doing this would sidestep all the combat/noncombat balance problems that classes have had in every edition ever, allow for more flexible and fluid character concept realization, and overall I think do a hell of a lot to improve things.

Now, if this were the case, then those other structures would have to step up their game, because right now they're dominated by classes in every way.  But I think it's worth asking the question:  are classes the best way to describe and represent noncombat capability?  I'm not sure defaulting to "yes" is a good thing. 

Discuss?



History is probably the biggest obstacle.  One mundane class is focuses on non-combat options (the rogue).  Spell casting classes in general are focused at will on whatever area of play the player chooses.  If you are going to represent non-combat ability outside of classes, you reasonably ought to strip it out of all classes, and I don't see that happening.

I don't see the designers changing tack to that extent at this point, so I'd rather focus on making the best of the system that is actually being devloped.
Mand:
That would be fine, if it were true.  But it isn't, it never will be, and we have to make our peace with that and fix the problems that it causes.

Wizards and clerics will receive spells that are useful outside of combat.  Rogues will recieve extra skills/tricks that are useful outside of combat.  Monks will receive extra movement powers that are useful outside of combat.  Dump all of that, and it would be fine to say "class is only about combat."  But so long as all of that exists, it's not fine to say "but the fighter doesn't get any of those things, and we'll make up for it by making him unkillable in melee."
Why not give fighters the ability to double or even  triple their skill dice when making Strength checks or Constitution checks?

This would allow them to achieve otherwise impossible results and contribute to the exploration phase. Their non-combat functionality then becomes overcoming physical obstacles.

And yes, the DM might not have physical obstacles (massive doors or portcullises, raging rivers, fallen rocks, long underwater tunnels) negating that advantage; but then the DM also may not have locks or traps in his adventure, taking the wind out of the classic Rogue. That's a DM issue, not a character issue. 

 And if you aren't playing a High Strength fighter, I'm betting you are playing a charming swashbuckler "face" character anyways, and already have a non-combat role.
Why not give fighters the ability to double or even  triple their skill dice when making Strength checks or Constitution checks?

This would allow them to achieve otherwise impossible results and contribute to the exploration phase. Their non-combat functionality then becomes overcoming physical obstacles.

And yes, the DM might not have physical obstacles (massive doors or portcullises, raging rivers, fallen rocks, long underwater tunnels) negating that advantage; but then the DM also may not have locks or traps in his adventure, taking the wind out of the classic Rogue. That's a DM issue, not a character issue. 

 And if you aren't playing a High Strength fighter, I'm betting you are playing a charming swashbuckler "face" character anyways, and already have a non-combat role.



Extra skill dice (and take the highest) might help, but I wouldn't want to limit it to STR and CON skills.  There are a lot more archetypes of fighter that are not high strength than just the charming swashbuckler. 
Why not give fighters the ability to double or even  triple their skill dice when making Strength checks or Constitution checks?


I think it would be great to give fighters maneuvers to help them in exploration.  I just have a lot of trouble coming up with a good way to give fighters and only fighters a way to contribute similarly in social situations.
Extra skill dice (and take the highest) might help, but I wouldn't want to limit it to STR and CON skills.  There are a lot more archetypes of fighter that are not high strength than just the charming swashbuckler. 

(Emphasis mine.) Respectfully, I don't think there are. You are absolutely correct that there are a lot more archetypical weapon users than those two types, but I think most of those other archetypes are going to be other character classes and not fighters (or not just fighters).

I think the vast majority of pure fighter types are going to be High Strength, or Moderate Strength/High Dex. And both types are probably going to be High Con, because More HP = Less Dead. In both cases, it would be a useful ability.
Why not give fighters the ability to double or even  triple their skill dice when making Strength checks or Constitution checks?


I think it would be great to give fighters maneuvers to help them in exploration.  I just have a lot of trouble coming up with a good way to give fighters and only fighters a way to contribute similarly in social situations.



What if the solution is to not try and limit it to fighters, but give fighters superior access?

Maybe the answer is a twist on the 3E fighter.  Perhaps a list of bonus feats that are exploration and interaction specific with an associated progression.  Every 2nd or 3rd or xth levels, the fighter gets a feat from the fighter out of combat feat list.  Other classes can take these feats, but fighters get more and can conservere their regular feat progression for combat related feats, if they so choose.  This prevents the fighter from over specializing in combat with their bonus feat, but does allow more room to specialize outside of combat (they can spend all their regular feats and the class bonus feats out of combat for a less combat focused fighter character.
Even if the truth is that it wouldn't be practical to change away from classes providing the primary noncombat capability, that doesn't answer my actual question:

Why should it be that way? 

Answer that, and it helps inform the shape of modifications we make.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
"Why should it be that way?"

I believe because Class is the only thing that the rules guarantee you will use. Specialties/Feats are currently optional, and Backgrounds/Skills were as well in a previous packet and may become so again in a subsequent packet.

So when you strip away everything that may not be used at some tables, you are left with class and class abilities.

Addition: if a non-combat use is baked into your class, it reduces the possibility that a novice player making a character will shoot themselves in the foot and accidentally not choose anything useful.
Even if the truth is that it wouldn't be practical to change away from classes providing the primary noncombat capability, that doesn't answer my actual question:

Why should it be that way? 

Answer that, and it helps inform the shape of modifications we make.



From a meta-game perspective, the game should never default to causing some players watch while others actually play the game.  It should incourage engagement from players at all times.

From an in-world perspective, a fighter is still going to spend far more time out of combat than in it.  A fighter is not studying mystic tomes or meditating and focusing his ki as they move towards enlightment.  They arent putting a rogues focus into the thiefly skills.  They are doing something.  There ought to be a way to model that somethign. 
If you strip away everything that may not be used at some tables, on what grounds do you then get to complain that there isn't enough stuff?

You can't throw away your cake and have it too. 

If the only complaint is "if we don't use the things that give us what we want, we won't have what we want!" then that's not a compelling argument given Next's modular, customizable design concepts.

Consider Mearls's description of Basic:  it's a dungeon crawler, and not much else.  For anything complicated in any level of detail, you need more rules.  It's okay to have specific noncombat capability, beyond d20+mod ability checks, being in larger, non-Basic rules.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
If you strip away everything that may not be used at some tables, on what grounds do you then get to complain that there isn't enough stuff?



If you strip away everything down to the most core of core and some stories or scenes leave no meaningful room for the fighter(or the Barbarian) to be involved, while providing plenty of room for other classes, that is a problem
If you strip away everything that may not be used at some tables, on what grounds do you then get to complain that there isn't enough stuff?



If you strip away everything down to the most core of core and some stories or scenes leave no meaningful room for the fighter(or the Barbarian) to be involved, while providing plenty of room for other classes, that is a problem


How exactly do you think I'm referring only to the fighter in my question?  Also, see above edits.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

I am uncertain of your point Mand. Is your contention that it's not important that all characters have a use out of combat, or that it IS important but shouldn't be in the class abilities?

If you strip away everything that may not be used at some tables, on what grounds do you then get to complain that there isn't enough stuff?



If you strip away everything down to the most core of core and some stories or scenes leave no meaningful room for the fighter(or the Barbarian) to be involved, while providing plenty of room for other classes, that is a problem


How exactly do you think I'm referring only to the fighter in my question?  Also, see above edits.



The point is that stripped down, spell casters and rogues have built in options that apply out of combat.  Stripped down a fighter has nothing to contribute.  Even a dungeon crawl is built of a mix of combat and exploration and interaction.  No other class is asked to have no meaningful options for 2 of those 3.
For exploration, class features might allow STR checks to manually interfere with traps through brute force.



Why do people think this doesn't already exist?

Player: "My fighter opens the door."
DM: "It's locked."
Player: "Darn.  Guess I'll stand there looking at it then."
DM: "Uhm.  You have an 18 strength.  And a great maul.  Of bashing."
Player: "Yeah?"
DM: "The door is thin, you know.  Really thin wood."
Player: "Yeah.  Sure wish it were open."
DM: "Like balsa wood.  Really wafer thin.  Much thinner than your bulging muscles."
Player: "Uh huh.  Dang.  I sure wish I'd taken a level of rogue.  Or a pick locks feat."
DM: *sigh* 

Seriously, next time someone claims that further codifying the rules doesn't necessarily lead to a failure of imagination, I'm pointing here.  Just because it's not spelled out explicitly doesn't mean it's forbidden.

There is NO NEED for explicit rules or mechanics for basic actions.  When it's something outside the ordinary function of the 6 traits, like Cleave, then yes, by all means, make a feat out of it.  But making a skill or feat for 'Picking Up Rocks' or 'Haggling with Merchants' is just going to result in people thinking that if it isn't allowed explicitly, it doesn't exist.

I am uncertain of your point Mand. Is your contention that it's not important that all characters have a use out of combat, or that it IS important but shouldn't be in the class abilities?



The latter, and specifically, asking the question of whether or not it should be in the class abilities.  If the answer is yes, then it's yes, but I don't think it's right to assume the answer is yes without asking the question.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Thank you, that clarifies the point.

Why do you believe that functionality does not belong as a class ability?

I am uncertain of your point Mand. Is your contention that it's not important that all characters have a use out of combat, or that it IS important but shouldn't be in the class abilities?



The latter, and specifically, asking the question of whether or not it should be in the class abilities.  If the answer is yes, then it's yes, but I don't think it's right to assume the answer is yes without asking the question.



Then how do you respond to a stripped down to class only game that allows most classes specific out of combat abilities but has a few classes that have no out of combat abiliites?  I don't think this is a good introduction for new players, or ideal for many groups who desire a  rules lite, yet complete rules set.
Then how do you respond to a stripped down to class only game that allows most classes specific out of combat abilities but has a few classes that have no out of combat abiliites? 



Because those classes that lack specific out-of-combat abilities are precisely the ones that are best in-combat.
Balance.


Ok, I'm gonna try and answer your questions according to my view of classes, and my experience with the game.

Why?

Seriously, why?



Because some players prefer to play noncombat oriented characters, instead of focusing on combat.
I've had many players who wouldn't care the least bit that their characters weren't as effective in combat as the fighters and sorcerers, they just liked to play their bards and rogues because they loved what those classes offered outside of combat.


Why should classes contribute anything out of combat?  What's wrong with establishing class as something that relates only to combat, and that non-combat things are handled by other character structures?



Because of the players I've mentioned above. A class is the core of what defines a character in D&D, and some players would rather trade their combat efficiency for other kind of stuff.
If all classes are even when it comes to combat, they have to be even when other things outside combat (like skills) come into play, and then you take away the option of those players to play a skill-focused character, for example.

And... from a class-design point of view... because if class is only about combat, you have a lot less to work with when it comes to differentiating classes and giving the different focuses and flavors.

The rogue, for example, right now is looking very much like an "agile fighter".
In my opinion this shouldn't be. The fighter who invests in Dex, dodge, etc should be the "agile fighter".
Although it is in the flavor of the rogue to have some "slipperiness" when it comes to combat... that was never the focus of the rogue class in D&D. The focus of the Rogue has always been outside of combat, skill use, stealing, handling traps, etc, doing lots and lots of different useful things.
It has seen different mechanics throughout editions (the thief's skills of 2ed along with proficiencies... having a lot of skill points to spend in 3ed...) but the flavor and focus of the class has always gone in that direction.
Without including non-combat oriented abilities in classes you can't reach that flavor which has always been in D&D and which many players love to play with. And if those classes are better in those things, they shouldn't be equal or better in other things like combat. It's not their gameplay focus.


Doing this would sidestep all the combat/noncombat balance problems that classes have had in every edition ever, 





D&D is a game about so much more than combat.
Giving classes "balance" means they should be better at some aspects of the game as a whole, worse at other aspects.
Some classes are awesome in combat, but they don't excel in other areas. Some are the opposite.




Then how do you respond to a stripped down to class only game that allows most classes specific out of combat abilities but has a few classes that have no out of combat abiliites? 



Because those classes that lack specific out-of-combat abilities are precisely the ones that are best in-combat.
Balance.





Not really.  It would be balanced if the best-in-combat classes had actual options out of combat, but that they were not quite as good as the out-of-combat characters.  In my mind the difference between a fighter and a rogue out of combat is far far greater than the distance between a rogue and a fighter in combat.  When you add to that caster classes that can focus their spells either in our out of combat each day, the descrepancy is even worse.
Not really.  It would be balanced if the best-in-combat classes had actual options out of combat, but that they were not quite as good as the out-of-combat characters. 



Since that is PRECISELY WHAT IS ALREADY TRUE, you should be thrilled.  Thread finished now.

I have always said, the single check "all or nothing" aspect of D&D's noncombat is the root of this constantly reoccurring issue. As long as most groups use single die rolls or actions to defeat noncombat obstacles then many players will have in the back of their minds that if they don't have a bonus or special feature, they shouldn't bother.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I have always said, the single check "all or nothing" aspect of D&D's noncombat is the root of this constantly reoccurring issue. As long as most groups use single die rolls or actions to defeat noncombat obstacles then many players will have in the back of their minds that if they don't have a bonus or special feature, they shouldn't bother.



If your effort results in a more frequent "Yes, but.." like hit points do for combat it can also encourage group effort.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

"Why should it be that way?"

I believe because Class is the only thing that the rules guarantee you will use. Specialties/Feats are currently optional, and Backgrounds/Skills were as well in a previous packet and may become so again in a subsequent packet.



I think if people WANT to take out the other ways to add exploration abilities to their characters, they should be allowed to and then have to accept the consequences of their actions.  Nobody is forcing them to take those things out.

Not really.  It would be balanced if the best-in-combat classes had actual options out of combat, but that they were not quite as good as the out-of-combat characters. 



Since that is PRECISELY WHAT IS ALREADY TRUE, you should be thrilled.  Thread finished now.



Actually it is not what is already true.  Other classes have defined abilites in game.  In a stripped down game (with out skills) the fighter only has DM fiat.  That is not a meaningful option.  Even in a game with skills, the fighter is limited to far less participation out of combat. The descrpancy between a fighters impact out of combat is far greater than the descrepancy between the fighter and any other class in combat.  So it is really not already true.  People would bring it up if it weren't an issue.  You don't want it addressed that is fine.  But it is a lesser game to a lot of others because it hasn't been.  And some of us care  enough about the game and hobby to suggest that problems actually be addressed.

Nope,

Not true.

Wizards, Clerics and Rogues have class based out-of-combat abilities.

Fighters don't and Barbarians have only VERY limited ones (and only at high levels).

This is a problem for anyone who wants to play the Basic game, not have players asleep at the wheel during games, and actually run adventures (with interaction, exploration and puzzles etc.) not just linked combat encounters.       
Nope,

Not true.

Wizards, Clerics and Rogues have class based out-of-combat abilities.

Fighters don't and Barbarians have only VERY limited ones (and only at high levels).

This is a problem for anyone who wants to play the Basic game, not have players asleep at the wheel during games, and actually run adventures (with interaction, exploration and puzzles etc.) not just linked combat encounters.       



Nobody is forced to play a fighter in the basic game.  WoTC could put a disclaimer somewhere saying that fighters and barbarians aren't as good as the other classes in the basic game.  If you don't want to be more limited out of combat as other people, you probably shouldn't play them.

Why should classes contribute anything out of combat?  What's wrong with establishing class as something that relates only to combat, and that non-combat things are handled by other character structures?



Well so long as you're having wizard spells as part of the class, then classes are contributing to non-combat. If you can use fly, charm and invisibility out of combat, and you also get a background, that means other classes need something to catch up. 



Why should classes contribute anything out of combat?  What's wrong with establishing class as something that relates only to combat, and that non-combat things are handled by other character structures?



Well so long as you're having wizard spells as part of the class, then classes are contributing to non-combat. If you can use fly, charm and invisibility out of combat, and you also get a background, that means other classes need something to catch up. 





Equality is not necessary.  As long as the other classes can effectively do things out of combat, and they can, that's fine.
Other classes have defined abilites in game.


Only in cases, such as picking locks or casting Passwall, in which the action specifically could not be handled by an appeal to a roll-against-trait.  If anything, I could see the argument for reducing, say, the thief's 'disarm traps' skill to a simple roll against Dex.  There is no justification for further codifying feats and skills to cover events already covered in the basic functions of the six traits.

  In a stripped down game (with out skills) the fighter only has DM fiat.  That is not a meaningful option. Even in a game with skills, the fighter is limited to far less participation out of combat. The descrpancy between a fighters impact out of combat is far greater than the descrepancy between the fighter and any other class in combat.  


Only if you think there is some reason to creat a codified skill or feat for EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE ACTION.  If not, let's say you make this hypothetical "mess with the trap mechanism" feat.  What will the fighter do when faced with a bridge that must be knocked down to foil pursuit?  Did the rule writers include a "knock Down Bridges" skill?  And then when it's time to cut down a tree, what if there's no "Cut Down Trees" feat? 
 And some of us care  enough about the game and hobby to suggest that problems actually be addressed.


Some of us care enough about the game and hobby to realize that bloating the rulebook with unnecessary rules will make it lessa ccessible to the masses of players we'd like to give it a try.

Equality is not necessary.  As long as the other classes can effectively do things out of combat, and they can, that's fine.



Well you don't necessarily need perfect equality, but you want to try to get things about even. Right now, you've got rogues getting skill bonuses, clerics and wizards getting out of combat magic, and fighters getting nothing at all.

There's a difference between "These two abilities don't have to be exactly equal" and straight up giving the fighter the shaft.
Equality is not necessary.  As long as the other classes can effectively do things out of combat, and they can, that's fine.



Well you don't necessarily need perfect equality, but you want to try to get things about even. Right now, you've got rogues getting skill bonuses, clerics and wizards getting out of combat magic, and fighters getting nothing at all.

There's a difference between "These two abilities don't have to be exactly equal" and straight up giving the fighter the shaft.



I really wouldn't mind giving the fighter a little something extra.  However, like Wrecan mentioned, it really cannot be something that other classes should be able to do.  You can't take away from others to give to the fighter.  So far, I really haven't seen any ideas that would work.
Sign In to post comments