Community

I'm coming late to this thread, and I don't know if anyone is still reading it.  But while catchng up on it, I've had a general notion coming together in my head that includes some of the suggestions and traditional fightery roles mentioned throughout this thread.

I'll start by saying this: I don't believe the fighter class should have nothing baked in for interaction or exploration.  I also don't believe they should be any better at these than other classes, or maybe even as good (especially if they're assumed to be the tops in the combat pillar - which is up for debate)...but there should be something distinctly theirs, or they just won't be distinct.  "Best at fighting" isn't enough, and probably won't be univesally true anyway.

I can kind of get behind the idea of applying the skill die or a similar benefit to all combat- or arms-related checks, and I can maybe see some application of sense motive (maybe a "smell trouble" ability?).  I can moreso get behind something like the rogue's skill tricks (but more limited), whether we call them stunts, utility maneuvers, feats of strength, or whatever, to cover the bend-bars-lift-gates side of things.  The latter idea helps more with exploration, but what about this for the interaction pillar:

Warrior's Demeanor
A fighter's training and instincts affect his whole mentality and bearing.  Whereas rogues are often shady or paranoid, and wizards tend to be bookish or awkward, the fighter exudes confidence, self-reliance, and sturdy dependability.  Depending on the option chosen, the actual benefit could be focused toward intimidation, or inspiring trust, or commanding others in times of crisis.  It could enable the fighter to make his foes underestimate him, taking him for a simple strongarm.  It could represent the value of plain speech - when the guy with the horses (sorry, couldn't help it) thinks the other characters are putting on airs or trying to sell him something, he looks at the fighter and sees a decent fellow he can do business with.  In any event, this would be a single element that plays up the character's concept of Tough Guy or Destined Hero or whatnot.  You could maybe retrain your Demeanor, or possibly pick up a second one, at a later level.

The specific benefit of a Warrior's Demeanor (or whatever it ends up being called) could be something vague like a background trait, or a more specific (mechanical) situational advantage, or a specific trained skill, or some combination of these - indeed, skill-and-trait almost sounds like a mini-background, without actually being the "second background" suggested elsewhere.  Regardless, it need not be a powerful benefit, merely a distinctive one.  It would preclude the phenomenon of playing an impressive, badass character that nobody is impressed by - a common and tragic experience for players of fighters.  I'm not talking about replacing the need to pick certain skills to "rock the pillar" as it has been put, just making specific social situations viable to otherwise strictly physical characters.

tl;dr:
Maybe to giving a skill die for "combat-related" checks, and to sense motive as a "smell trouble" ability.
Yes to stunts or utility maneuvers for feats of strength and the like.
Proposed: Warrior's Demeanor, which grants a minor social benefit based on a fighter's general air of confidence/menace/etc.

Op, read the "backgrounds and skills" section.  It gives a character of any class some out of combat skills to work with.  41 pages talking about something that is already part of the game, wow.

AOO as fighter-only.
Problem solved.

Feb 5, 2013 -- 7:58AM, stoloc wrote:

Feb 5, 2013 -- 6:42AM, Karnos wrote:

Op, read the "backgrounds and skills" section.  It gives a character of any class some out of combat skills to work with.  41 pages talking about something that is already part of the game, wow.

Because fighters don't need nice things?

You know what is rather amusing. The 4e fighter was considered woefully underpowered in regards to their out of combat utility, but they had things 10x better than the 5e fighter.

In 4e:
*Skill training granted a +5 bonus. You don't see a similar gain from training in 5e until your skill die reaches a d10 and that only occurs at higher levels.
*Fighters only had three trained skills, but each skill was worth 2 or more 5e skills. Athletics covers climbing, jumping, swimming, and moving objects for example. Acrobatics covers both balance and tumble. Perception covers search and spot. So a 4e fighter may have less skills, but can accomplish more tasks.
*Martial practices gave PCs mundane "rituals" to perform that were both fun and flavorful.
*Multiclassing was encouraged and all multiclass feats grant a bonus trained skill. The higher availability of feats meant that almost all PCs multiclassed at some point in their career.
*The 1/2 level bonus means that your PC actually improves at adventuring as they level. The cliff that was too hard to climb at level 1, the guards that were too hard to sneak by, and the chasm that was too big to jump, all become manageable as you gain levels. In 5e...nope.
*Skill utility powers provided a wide array of non-combat benefits and interesting uses of skills.

It is kind of sad to see that instead of the Devs learning from their failures and bringing up the out of combat utility of the fighter, they are instead slashing it in half.
   

Feb 5, 2013 -- 7:58AM, stoloc wrote:

Feb 5, 2013 -- 6:42AM, Karnos wrote:

Op, read the "backgrounds and skills" section.  It gives a character of any class some out of combat skills to work with.  41 pages talking about something that is already part of the game, wow.

Because fighters don't need nice things?
 

Just ignore them, they have been disruptive to many threads lately...