Why rolling the Warlord into the Fighter does NOTHING to help the Fighter

In a sentence, it's simple:

The Fighter is already amazing in combat and the developers are only talking about adding the combat elements of the Warlord.

What does that mean?

We've had several threads discussing the issues with the Fighter and only a VERY small number of people have had anything much negative to say about Fighters in combat.  When there is a fight going on the Fighter class is just fine (maybe TOO fine...).

The ISSUE has been that in the exploration and interaction elements of the game many people see the Fighter as nearly useless.  While there ARE things which they can do (like the "Aid Another" action) you are flat out better having any other class in the game at the table if there isn't a fight going on.

If anything the Fighter is already TOO GOOD in combat, adding more combat abilities and flexibility onto the class is only going to make that worse.  This is an issue if only because it's an easy justification to keep the Fighter entirely off the ladder when it comes to exploration and interaction.




And STOP.

Before you even TRY to argue "but Fighters get backgrounds", like I'm some kind of idiot, DON'T.

I KNOW that Fighters get backgrounds.

But so does every other class AND every other class (even the blinking Barbarian for the love of pity!) gets class abilities which assist in the exploration and/or interaction "pillars" AS WELL as solid combat ability.  

So "Fighters get backgrounds" does NOTHING to help the comparison, nor negate the fact that EVERY OTHER CLASS is better than a Fighter if there isn't combat going on.  Which is great for the pizza and softdrinks supply but pretty cruddy for anyone who likes playing Fighters.




The bitter, BITTER irony of all this is that we KNOW that it doesn't have to be this way.

The absolutely best, most effective in AND out of combat, Fighter ever written for D&D (who could actually defend OR deal huge damage AND was still useful when fights weren't happening) existed at the SAME TIME as a full and functional Warlord class and the two NEVER STEPPED ON ONE ANOTHERS TOES.

We CAN have a great Fighter AND a great Warlord in the same edition at the same time. 




What the Fighter NEEDS is some out-of-combat utility powers and another skill, tying both in to his Fighting Style would be a GREAT idea (and neatly dodges the "how DARE you pidgeonhole my unique sonwflake Fighter" effect) and would ACTUALLY make the class better.

And you don't need to touch the Warlord.

Or repeat the mistakes of the 3.5 to 4th changeover. 
Aye, that duelist vs. bodygaurd vs. soldier stuff would work so much better as the delivery method for the OOC abilities, than as straight jackets for maneuvers.
Aye, that duelist vs. bodygaurd vs. soldier stuff would work so much better as the delivery method for the OOC abilities, than as straight jackets for maneuvers.



Exactly.

There is HUGE potential in those Fighting Styles.

Currently NONE of it is being realised. 
Your clear arguments and clever mechanical suggestions inspire me, Admiral, and have thus restored 4d8 of my hit points.
Your clear arguments and clever mechanical suggestions inspire me, Admiral, and have thus restored 4d8 of my hit points.



Exactly.

You didn't need "healing" because (whatever Mearls thinks) your hand wasn't off and your bowels weren't spooling at your feet.

You just had a few scratches and bruises and were feeling a bit battered and demoralised.

Rallied, you can fight on! 
I agree.

If the developers gave some mechanical weight to the Fighter's fighting style, like they've given to the Wizard's tradition of wizardry and the Cleric's deity, we would have a better Fighter class. Those options for the other two classes are saying "Here's an archetype expressible by this class and some mechanics to help you play that in the game." A Fighter's fighting style is nothing more than a bag of suggestions. Additionally, as you've noted, the other classes get skill choices such as those provided by Monastic Training, Wizardly Knowledge, and Religious Knowledge. The Fighter of course, gets nothing...

In my opinion, it's a terrible class design as is, and switching MDD to WDD will do little to address the issue.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, "Are you really sure?"

Furthermore switching to WDD is only gonna straight jacket the fighter even more as the disadvantage of using smaller weapons and shields gets multiplied while the advantages remain static.

What exactly is WDD supposed to fix anyway?


There's some supposed problem with a "lack of differentiation" between different weapon selections.

Which is a bad thing in the eyes of some players, it seems.

But given that lower W weapons aren't being given any real advantages to make up for it they're just going to be dumped...

I hope that's what the development team are going for.



In any case MDD vs WDD isn't the point of this discussion.



Rolling the Warlord into the Fighter and having nothing better to show for it other than a whole pile of pissed off Warlord fans is the point. 
I will say that in that podcast I don't think Mearls and co ever suggested that warlordesque maneuvers would make up for fighters sucking OOC - I think that was mostly just SleepsInTraffic on the forums. The official thinking seems to be mostly that the tactical side of the warlord seems fightery and the inspiration seems bardy.
I will say that in that podcast I don't think Mearls and co ever suggested that warlordesque maneuvers would make up for fighters sucking OOC - I think that was mostly just SleepsInTraffic on the forums. The official thinking seems to be mostly that the tactical side of the warlord seems fightery and the inspiration seems bardy.



Exactly.

So in destroying the Warlord class the Fighter STILL doesn't have it's actual problems fixed.

Regardless of the baseless claims that some members of this forum have been making. 
I'm afraid I was not inspired. My HP damage remains.
I'm afraid I was not inspired. My HP damage remains.



Would you like me to sing you a little song?

Will that make it all better?

Or maybe you should take a single nights sleep, or a "cure light wounds" to fix up that sword wound that knocked you unconscious.

Because D&D has ALWAYS been so good at managing these things.

Wink

In any case, that's all dross.

The point is that, despite what others are wishfully claiming, the death of the Warlord doesn't even help to improve the Fighter. 
A warlord would make a great Fighting Style.

There is not really enough meat on the concept for a class without having 100 different ways of doing very slightly different things. A feat that allowed a reroll on attack or check or an extra move action is both more flexible and powerful than the clunky 4th edition Warlord and you don't need a "I search through my backpack" power etc. You can just spend your move action to do it. Of course rerolling your initiative is not exactly the same as +2 on initiative but the flavour is the same. In this way they can get away from the many tiny penalties and bonuses that slowed 4th edition combat to a crawl. 
A warlord would make a great Fighting Style.

There is not really enough meat on the concept for a class without having 100 different ways of doing very slightly different things. A feat that allowed a reroll on attack or check or an extra move action is both more flexible and powerful than the clunky 4th edition Warlord and you don't need a "I search through my backpack" power etc. You can just spend your move action to do it. Of course rerolling your initiative is not exactly the same as +2 on initiative but the flavour is the same. In this way they can get away from the many tiny penalties and bonuses that slowed 4th edition combat to a crawl. 



Hardly, your hyperbole doesn't help your argument either.

For me a Warlord needs a bit more than the "Fighter option" offers.

They would need to have as options AND an individual character would need to be able to do most of:


1: Grant advantage to the next attack made by an ally (and the Warlord also attacks). 

2: Give an ally a bonus "free" attack with extra damage.
3: Grant bonuses (or advantage) to initiative checks.
4: Give an ally a "free" move (and the Warlord also attacks).
5: Give an ally a save against an ongoing effect (and the Warlord also attacks).
6: Use an interrupt to reduce damage to (or prevent an attack on) an ally.
7: Restore lost HP of an ally (and the Warlord also attacks).
8: Improve out-of-combat healing.
9: Allow and ally to move and attack off-turn.
10: Grant an ally a "free" attack with NO bonuses (and the Warlord also attacks).
11: Give an ally a bonus to damage on their next attack (and the Warlord also attacks). 


Fighting styles don't support all of that.

And if they ARE going to support more then I think the priority needs to go on improving out-of-combat capabilities. 

And none of it need slow combat at all. 
I'm afraid I was not inspired. My HP damage remains.



Would you like me to sing you a little song?

Will that make it all better?

Or maybe you should take a single nights sleep, or a "cure light wounds" to fix up that sword wound that knocked you unconscious.

Because D&D has ALWAYS been so good at managing these things.



In any case, that's all dross.

The point is that, despite what others are wishfully claiming, the death of the Warlord doesn't even help to improve the Fighter. 

None of those things inspire me either. I am doomed to having HP below maximum.

I'm afraid I was not inspired. My HP damage remains.



Would you like me to sing you a little song?

Will that make it all better?

Or maybe you should take a single nights sleep, or a "cure light wounds" to fix up that sword wound that knocked you unconscious.

Because D&D has ALWAYS been so good at managing these things.



In any case, that's all dross.

The point is that, despite what others are wishfully claiming, the death of the Warlord doesn't even help to improve the Fighter. 

None of those things inspire me either. I am doomed to having HP below maximum.



maybe visit a doctor or hospital they might have some healing kit they can use to help you.
Turning the tactical warlord into a fighter does not automatically fix the fighter, no.


But it expands the fighter's design space.



And it is hoped (not certain, just hoped) that in the process of doing this (and perhaps in response to the cries from the wilderness) they will in the process also decide to expand on the definition of the fighter and give them some exploration or interaction pillar class features.


It doesn't by itself do anything - but it puts a small crack in the hidebound view that the fighter can't do anything but fight and it is hoped that this might lead to additional improvements to the class.


Carl    
Turning the tactical warlord into a fighter does not automatically fix the fighter, no.


But it expands the fighter's design space.



And it is hoped (not certain, just hoped) that in the process of doing this (and perhaps in response to the cries from the wilderness) they will in the process also decide to expand on the definition of the fighter and give them some exploration or interaction pillar class features.


It doesn't by itself do anything - but it puts a small crack in the hidebound view that the fighter can't do anything but fight and it is hoped that this might lead to additional improvements to the class.


Carl    



They shouldn't have to kill another class because they are too lazy to improve on the design of another. That is the problem.

Turning the tactical warlord into a fighter does not automatically fix the fighter, no.


But it expands the fighter's design space.



And it is hoped (not certain, just hoped) that in the process of doing this (and perhaps in response to the cries from the wilderness) they will in the process also decide to expand on the definition of the fighter and give them some exploration or interaction pillar class features.


It doesn't by itself do anything - but it puts a small crack in the hidebound view that the fighter can't do anything but fight and it is hoped that this might lead to additional improvements to the class.


Carl    



They shouldn't have to kill another class because they are too lazy to improve on the design of another. That is the problem.



Like everything you can look at it from difrent sides.
when 4th what created you could say why did they have to rip the tacical aspect from the fighter just to make another class.
Turning the tactical warlord into a fighter does not automatically fix the fighter, no.


But it expands the fighter's design space.



And it is hoped (not certain, just hoped) that in the process of doing this (and perhaps in response to the cries from the wilderness) they will in the process also decide to expand on the definition of the fighter and give them some exploration or interaction pillar class features.


It doesn't by itself do anything - but it puts a small crack in the hidebound view that the fighter can't do anything but fight and it is hoped that this might lead to additional improvements to the class.


Carl    



They shouldn't have to kill another class because they are too lazy to improve on the design of another. That is the problem.



Like everything you can look at it from difrent sides.
when 4th what created you could say why did they have to rip the tacical aspect from the fighter just to make another class.



Doesn't work. The Fighter never had that stuff, so there was nothing to take. The Warlord is its own class concept, and should remain that way.

As I understand it the lack of OOC built in fighter abilities is by design and working as intended. It is not a coincidence that fighter is like this when all other classes are not.

Warlord options are a great idea in my book, something to differentiate fighters, yes. I also expect there will eventually be extra OOC options for fighter - but they will come at the cost of his fighting. Its a balance matter.
As I understand it the lack of OOC built in fighter abilities is by design and working as intended. It is not a coincidence that fighter is like this when all other classes are not.

Warlord options are a great idea in my book, something to differentiate fighters, yes. I also expect there will eventually be extra OOC options for fighter - but they will come at the cost of his fighting. Its a balance matter.



Again, youre killing a popular class just to scatter it amongst different parts of the game. They need to focus on giving the Fighter its own unque stuff, not just getting stuff that doesn't belong to it. That's lazy design.
Turning the tactical warlord into a fighter does not automatically fix the fighter, no.


But it expands the fighter's design space.



And it is hoped (not certain, just hoped) that in the process of doing this (and perhaps in response to the cries from the wilderness) they will in the process also decide to expand on the definition of the fighter and give them some exploration or interaction pillar class features.


It doesn't by itself do anything - but it puts a small crack in the hidebound view that the fighter can't do anything but fight and it is hoped that this might lead to additional improvements to the class.


Carl    



They shouldn't have to kill another class because they are too lazy to improve on the design of another. That is the problem.



Like everything you can look at it from difrent sides.
when 4th what created you could say why did they have to rip the tacical aspect from the fighter just to make another class.



Doesn't work. The Fighter never had that stuff.




In ADnD 2nd it was included in the fighter,as quoted from the ADnD 2nd player handbook.

The fighter is a warior, an expert of weapons and if he is clever,tactics and strategy.
There are many famous fighters from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawata,Beowolf,Siegfried,Cuchckain,Little john,Tristan and symbad.
History is crouwded with great generals and wariors : El Cid,Hanibal, Alexander the Great,Charlemagne,Sparticus,Richard the Lionhearth and Belisarius.
Your fighter could be modeld after any of these, or he could be unique.
A visit to your local library can uncover many more heroic fighters.

The focus was a bit less in 3.X  player handbook but the conquering overlord and bandit king where given as fighter examples.
Though in the DMG in the section about the role of the fighter in the world they are discribed as army captains or leaders of mercenary bands.
 
Doesn't work. The Fighter never had that stuff, so there was nothing to take.  




The fighter characters from myth, legend and history listed for 2e I find very inspirational... some of them are very much well the tactical genius of Alexander the Great is certainly implying maybe the fighter ought to have had that stuff... the Fighter also didnt really have stuff to be a defender properly way back when until 4e gave it to him... shrug.

The minimal amount of things they would need to include for a ranger to be a fighter derived sub-class instead of its own class seems astonishing far less than the warlord.
  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."

 

Turning the tactical warlord into a fighter does not automatically fix the fighter, no.


But it expands the fighter's design space.



And it is hoped (not certain, just hoped) that in the process of doing this (and perhaps in response to the cries from the wilderness) they will in the process also decide to expand on the definition of the fighter and give them some exploration or interaction pillar class features.


It doesn't by itself do anything - but it puts a small crack in the hidebound view that the fighter can't do anything but fight and it is hoped that this might lead to additional improvements to the class.


Carl    



They shouldn't have to kill another class because they are too lazy to improve on the design of another. That is the problem.



Like everything you can look at it from difrent sides.
when 4th what created you could say why did they have to rip the tacical aspect from the fighter just to make another class.



Doesn't work. The Fighter never had that stuff.




In ADnD 2nd it was included in the fighter,as quoted from the ADnD 2nd player handbook.

The fighter is a warior, an expert of weapons and if he is clever,tactics and strategy.
There are many famous fighters from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawata,Beowolf,Siegfried,Cuchckain,Little john,Tristan and symbad.
History is crouwded with great generals and wariors : El Cid,Hanibal, Alexander the Great,Charlemagne,Sparticus,Richard the Lionhearth and Belisarius.
Your fighter could be modeld after any of these, or he could be unique.
A visit to your local library can uncover many more heroic fighters.

The focus was a bit less in 3.X  player handbook but the conquering overlord and bandit king where given as fighter examples.
Though in the DMG in the section about the role of the fighter in the world they are discribed as army captains or leaders of mercenary bands.



Irrelevant. The Warlord didn't take any mechanics from the Fighter. The 4e Fighter has just as many tactical options as the Warlord did, but they operated very different because they are a different archetype.

If you want to give the Fighter more tactical depth, there's still a ton of 4e Fighter stuff they haven't touched on. They're just being lazy.

 
Doesn't work. The Fighter never had that stuff, so there was nothing to take.  




The fighter characters from myth, legend and history listed for 2e I find very inspirational... some of them are very much well the tactical genius of Alexander the Great is certainly implying maybe the fighter ought to have had that stuff... the Fighter also didnt really have stuff to be a defender properly way back when until 4e gave it to him... shrug.

The minimal amount of things they would need to include for a ranger to be a fighter derived sub-class instead of its own class seems astonishing far less than the warlord.



Yeah, but the Warlord is badwrong4e. It has to get the arbitrary axe. 


The fighter is its own archetype in D&D. The Warlord fills a completely different niche.

Irrelevant. The Warlord didn't take any mechanics from the Fighter. The 4e Fighter has just as many tactical options as the Warlord did, but they operated very different because they are a different archetype.

If you want to give the Fighter more tactical depth, there's still a ton of 4e Fighter stuff they haven't touched on. They're just being lazy.



Well when 4th edition they could have made 2 choices.

A: keep tactics as part of the fighter  many of the powers that became worlord powers would just have become fighter powers you could chose.

B: make it a seperate class for the tactical fighter.

They went for choice B  and added healing to it to fill the martial leader slot that arose in the 4th edition system.
This is what Mike ment by the warlord being more of a expression of the system.

They decided to split up the fighter to fill the (martial leader) slot that was created by the 4th edition system.

As 5th edition no longer uses roles and power sourced as a integral part of it's design so there is no longer any reason to keep them split just to fill out a certain powersource/role combination.  
Any class is an expression of the system, otherwise we would not have rules or dice to roll.

Irrelevant. The Warlord didn't take any mechanics from the Fighter. The 4e Fighter has just as many tactical options as the Warlord did, but they operated very different because they are a different archetype.

If you want to give the Fighter more tactical depth, there's still a ton of 4e Fighter stuff they haven't touched on. They're just being lazy.



Well when 4th edition they could have made 2 choices.

A: keep itactics as part of the fighter  many of the powers that became worlord powers would just have become fighter powers you could chose.

B: make it a seperate class for the tactical fighter.

They went for choice B  and added healing to it to fill the martial leader slot that arose in the 4th edition system.
This is what Mike ment by the warlord being more of a expression of the system.

They decided to split up the fighter to fill the (martial leader) slot that was created by the 4th edition system.

As 5th edition no longer uses roles and power sourced as a integral part of it's design so there is no longer any reason to keep them split just to fill out a certain powersource/role combination.  




They didn't split anything up. They gave the Fighter a bunch of its own tactical options and created the Warlord to fill its own niche. If you're going to get rid of the Warlord because it has its own unique stuff, then you should do the same to the ranger and barbarian. They have much more overlap.

Btw, 5e has roles. Every edition of D&D has roles. Just because they don't make it user friendly and spell them out does not mean thet aren't there. 

Irrelevant. The Warlord didn't take any mechanics from the Fighter. The 4e Fighter has just as many tactical options as the Warlord did, but they operated very different because they are a different archetype.

If you want to give the Fighter more tactical depth, there's still a ton of 4e Fighter stuff they haven't touched on. They're just being lazy.



Well when 4th edition they could have made 2 choices.

A: keep itactics as part of the fighter  many of the powers that became worlord powers would just have become fighter powers you could chose.

B: make it a seperate class for the tactical fighter.

They went for choice B  and added healing to it to fill the martial leader slot that arose in the 4th edition system.
This is what Mike ment by the warlord being more of a expression of the system.

They decided to split up the fighter to fill the (martial leader) slot that was created by the 4th edition system.

As 5th edition no longer uses roles and power sourced as a integral part of it's design so there is no longer any reason to keep them split just to fill out a certain powersource/role combination.  




They didn't split anything up. They gave the Fighter a bunch of its own tactical options and created the Warlord to




Alternately - they took the fighter concept and split its functions into the leader and a defender roles - and then created class expressions for both (because that is the 4E approach).



Fighters didn't have any defender mechanics before 4E either.  If they had named the Warlord 'the fighter' and the Fighter 'the guardian' - we would be having this conversation in reverse with  people claiming that 'fighters are natural leader' and the guardian deserves its own class.


If you look at how the class was described in the past - its description clearly included the role of inspiring leader.  Granted, it didn't have any mechanics to support that but it didn't have mechanics to support anything else but whacking people over the head


4E (one of its better innovations) said: "Let's actually give the classes mechanics to let them do what the fluff says they can do:


4E then (one of its less stellar innovations) said:  "Let's restrict each class to a single role and really focus on that role".


Having done that - the parts of the fighter description (pure fluff pre-4E) which related to its role as defender or 'tank' were split off to make the fighter.   And the parts of the fighter descriptions (pure fluff pre-4E) which related to its role as a leader were split off to make the warlord. And then some healing was added on because 'leaders heal' in 4E.


But aside from the healing, the concept of the fighter as a tactical leader was a part of the fighter fluff in the prior editions.  It just had no mechanical representatin just as the fighter's role as a defender lacked mechanical representations.


4E did split the warlord off of the fighter.  In prior editions the numerous examples of warlords we've seen on these threads would have been labeled fighters. People might have complained about the lack of mechanics to really represent the archetype well - but they wouldn't have questioned their class.


Carl               
    

I'm with Carl. It seems pretty obvious that 4e managed a large array of classes by cutting broader concepts into chunks, defining mechanical space for them, and calling them all classes.


The DDN approach to classes isn't like that, but the mechanical space is defined. The mechanics aren't going away, nor should they. Whether the classes should be cut into chunks or not is a matter of personal preference.

Just my thoughts, but I wonder if there will only be Fighter Rogue Priest and Wizard as classes, then every thing else will fall into backgrounds and specilties... IE.. Barbarians Warlords Monks are specialized fighters and will get mechanical adavantages in and out of combat based on those. Just a thought. Follows the keep it simple for those who want simple, modularity design concept. We could be just testing "mechanics" that will be added as a background or specialty.  
The absolutely best, most effective in AND out of combat, Fighter ever written for D&D (who could actually defend OR deal huge damage AND was still useful when fights weren't happening) existed at the SAME TIME as a full and functional Warlord class and the two NEVER STEPPED ON ONE ANOTHERS TOES.

What does the 4E Fighter get that made it effective out of combat?

There are 10 utility powers between level 2 to 10 in the PHB.  They allow you to:
- Cancel combat advantage that you are granting.
- Gain regeneration while bloodied.
- Gain temporary hit points.
- Slide an adjacent ally 2 squares to another square adjacent to you.
- Reduce the damage you take from an attack.
- Gain a +2 bonus to Fort, Ref, and Will.
- Gain a +10 bonus to initiative.
- Take no damage when you are hit by an attack (but you are stunned and take -2 to defenses).
- Move 3 squares as a minor action, must end adjacent to an enemy.
- Grant adjacent allies a bonus to defense.

How do any of these grant out of combat utiity?  The 4E Fighter doesn't even get as many skills as other classes!  It is the only PHB class to get just 3 skills.

I'm not saying that the Fighter shouldn't get out of combat abilities under any circumstance (even though I don't really think they need them).  But citing 4E doesn't really help at all.

Even if you look at the powers from Heroes of the Fallen Lands, which are all built around the Fighter's class skills, you still don't find any out of combat powers!  Incidentally, in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, the Fighter got the following 3 Utility Powers:

Get Up!: lets a dying ally spend a surge and stand up.
Helping Hands: lets an ally make a saving throw.
Battlefield Healing: lets you or an ally spend a surge.

Good precident for a combat medic.
What does the 4E Fighter get that made it effective out of combat?

I agree.  I don't undertsand how people keep saying 4e fighters got out-of-combat stuff.  During 4e, there were constant complaints that people felt forced to include Athletics in every skill challenge just to give fighters somethign to do.

Fighters have never had out-of-combat stuff, but they really should.
What does the 4E Fighter get that made it effective out of combat?

There are 10 utility powers between level 2 to 10 in the PHB.  They allow you to:
- Cancel combat advantage that you are granting.
- Gain regeneration while bloodied.
- Gain temporary hit points.
- Slide an adjacent ally 2 squares to another square adjacent to you.
- Reduce the damage you take from an attack.
- Gain a +2 bonus to Fort, Ref, and Will.
- Gain a +10 bonus to initiative.
- Take no damage when you are hit by an attack (but you are stunned and take -2 to defenses).
- Move 3 squares as a minor action, must end adjacent to an enemy.
- Grant adjacent allies a bonus to defense.

How do any of these grant out of combat utiity?  The 4E Fighter doesn't even get as many skills as other classes!  It is the only PHB class to get just 3 skills.

I'm not saying that the Fighter shouldn't get out of combat abilities under any circumstance (even though I don't really think they need them).  But citing 4E doesn't really help at all.



The main interaction point for non-combat in 4E was the skill system. Fighters had excellent access to one of the big six(Athletics), which also tended in my experience to be the rarest of said six.

Now, Fighters had only three trained skills and tended not to have great stats that match up with the rest of the skill list, but in the end the 4E was less boned outside of combat comparatively speaking than the Fighter of any other edition.
...whatever
  The 4E Fighter doesn't even get as many skills as other classes!  It is the only PHB class to get just 3 skills.


1 4e skill may be worth 3 or more many of NEXT skills because swim.. oh athletics, climb oh athletics, jump oh athletics ... there was a generalized allow skills to do a broad set of things. And skills werent trivialised by somebody pulling out the right one of 30 some spells. Ritual casting time made sure skills were valuable for the emergency.

And umm making any class with 3 skills have 4 including hybrids was a trivial house rule so we cheated.

 

Incidentally, in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, the Fighter got the following 3 Utility Powers:

Get Up!: lets a dying ally spend a surge and stand up.
Helping Hands: lets an ally make a saving throw.
Battlefield Healing: lets you or an ally spend a surge.

Good precident for a combat medic.



Interesting ... but look at how the heal skill worked in 4e its pretty close to that - the spending a surge was using their second wind. But it sounds to be just tweaks.
  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."

 

Yeah, I don't like this "Warlord folded into Fighter" thing. To the OP: yes I would prefer that classes are balanced in and out of combat. Fighter being better at combat than everyone else makes every combat-focused builds of the others classes trap option.
What does the 4E Fighter get that made it effective out of combat?

There are 10 utility powers between level 2 to 10 in the PHB.  They allow you to:
- Cancel combat advantage that you are granting.
- Gain regeneration while bloodied.
- Gain temporary hit points.
- Slide an adjacent ally 2 squares to another square adjacent to you.
- Reduce the damage you take from an attack.
- Gain a +2 bonus to Fort, Ref, and Will.
- Gain a +10 bonus to initiative.
- Take no damage when you are hit by an attack (but you are stunned and take -2 to defenses).
- Move 3 squares as a minor action, must end adjacent to an enemy.
- Grant adjacent allies a bonus to defense.

How do any of these grant out of combat utiity?  The 4E Fighter doesn't even get as many skills as other classes!  It is the only PHB class to get just 3 skills.

I'm not saying that the Fighter shouldn't get out of combat abilities under any circumstance (even though I don't really think they need them).  But citing 4E doesn't really help at all.

The main interaction point for non-combat in 4E was the skill system. Fighters had excellent access to one of the big six(Athletics), which also tended in my experience to be the rarest of said six.

Now, Fighters had only three trained skills and tended not to have great stats that match up with the rest of the skill list, but in the end the 4E was less boned outside of combat comparatively speaking than the Fighter of any other edition.

So the "main interaction point for non-combat in 4E was the skill system"?  Yes, of course it was.  Just like the main interaction point for non-combat in Next is the stat check system (augmented by trained skills).  There is no difference!  And Fighters still have excellent access to Athletics due to having a high Strength.  If Fighters in 4E were the best out of combat Fighter in any past edition, and they did so without any out of combat utility powers, 1 less skill, AND they "tended not to have great stats that match up with the rest of the skill list"...then I am really not seeing why the Next Fighter needs anything more.  Perhaps just give them a bonus skill to match what the Cleric and Wizard get.

Actually the fighter having lack of skill parity  (and having to use Multiclassing and backgrounds to make up for it) was one of my main issues with 4E and I think I've been consistent about that. I will say that having those extra options did (except for 1E NWP) make for the most effective OOC fighter but it wasn't in his class (except maybe martial practices and skill tricks)? Fighters did have access to Wisdom and Dexerity frequently (for stealth/Perception) and my Slayer subclasses always took the Silent Hunter Background specifically for those skills.
 The main interaction point for non-combat in 4E was the skill system. Fighters had excellent access to one of the big six(Athletics), which also tended in my experience to be the rarest of said six.


What tco is obliquely trying to say is that even thought he fighter got no out-of-combat mechanics, neither did most of the other classes.  Rituals were invoked infrequently, and most spells that had been classic out-of-combat utility, like charm person, phantasmal force, and the like were deleted or  limited to combat utility.  

In Next, all those out-of-combat spells are back, but the fighter is still left behind.
What does the 4E Fighter get that made it effective out of combat?

I agree.  I don't undertsand how people keep saying 4e fighters got out-of-combat stuff.  During 4e, there were constant complaints that people felt forced to include Athletics in every skill challenge just to give fighters somethign to do.

Fighters have never had out-of-combat stuff, but they really should.



I really don't agree. It might be true of WotC editions, but NWPs in AD&D and Skills in BECM were distributed pretty evenly between the classes. They might not have had thieving skills, but they weren't without out-of-combat ability in older editions. 

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha.