Improving Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks outside of Combat

(We were having this discussion in another thread about skills in general, but I thought it deserved its own topic.)

 

What can the system do to make sure that the Fighter Class is useful outside of combat? Same question for Barbarians and Monks.

 

The game can be divided up into three tiers of play: Combat, Exploration, and Interaction. The Fighter, clearly is supposed to be the master of Combat. However, the class is sorely lacking in support in the Exploration and Interaction tiers of play. The Barbarian and Monk also fall into this category. Paladins and Rangers, interestingly, are fairly well supported in the 3 tiers (surprise! they have spells!).

 

Note, that I am talking about the Fighter/Barbarian/Monk Class and its features. Not Backgrounds. Not Feats. 

 

In this thread we discuss ideas for improving the out-of-combat utility for Warrior classes. I'd rather not get into a huge debate about whether or not these classes NEED to be improved out-of-combat. The assumption of this thread is that we agree they need help and suggestion methods to solve the problem.

 

IDEA #1

Here's one of my suggestions from the other thread. 

Warrior's Demeanor: At level 1, choose one of the following.

* Commander: some bonus to persuasion and commanding / leadership allies

* Sellsword: some bonus to deception and negotiating deals 

* Brute: some bonus to Intimidate and getting what they want by fear tactics

 

That would give Fighters an option to play the TYPE of Warrior they want and make them more useful in Interaction, with or without a good Charisma. And it doesn't rely on backgrounds or feats.

 

IDEA #2

Fighter/Barbarian (Level 1): Choose one of the following...

Military Knowledge

As a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin, you are well versed in the history of warfare, battles lost and won, and various types of arms and armor. You have Advantage on Intelligence (History) checks related to those topics.

Imposing Warrior

As a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin, you know that victory is not always won by the sword, but sometimes in the battles you never have to fight. You have Advantage on Charisma (Intimidate) checks.

Hardened Warrior

As a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin, you are used to long nights away from home, sleeping in uncomfortable places, and living off the land. You have Advantage on Wisdom (Survival) check related to those situations.

 

IDEA #3

Monk (Level 1):

Zen Awareness

As a Monk, you are naturally in tune with the body, spirit, and mind of yourself and the creatures around you. You have Advantage on Wisdom (Insight) checks against living creatures you can see and hear.

 

=======

More ideas and suggestions! Ready? GO!

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

Summary of Class support in Combat, Exploration, and Interaction.

 

(under construction)

 

FIGHTERS:

  • Combat: everything
  • Exploration: zero
  • Interaction: zero
  • Skills: One choice from (Athletics, Acrobatics, Intimidate).

 

BARBARIAN:

  • Combat: most everything
  • Exploration: Rage can be situationally effective in Exploration due to Adv on Strength Checks...but seriously, who would waste a daily rage out of combat?
  • Interaction: zero
  • Skills: One choice from (Athletics, Intimidation, Survival).

 

MONK:

  • Combat: most everything
  • Exploration: Slow Fall is good! 
  • Interaction: Tongue of Sun and Moon (Level 13). Comes really late in the game, though.
  • Skills: One choice from (Acrobatics, Athletics, Religion).

BARD:

Show
  • Combat: 
  • Exploration: 
  • Interaction: 
  • Skills: 

 

ROGUE:

Show
  • Combat: 
  • Exploration: 
  • Interaction: 
  • Skills: 

 

    DRUID:

    Show
    • Combat: 
    • Exploration: 
    • Interaction: 
    • Skills: 

     

    CLERIC:

    Show
    • Combat: 

    • Exploration: 
    • Interaction: 
    • Skills: 

     

    MAGE:

    Show
    • Combat: 
    • Exploration: 
    • Interaction: 
    • Skills: 

     

    PALADIN:

    Show
    • Combat: 
    • Exploration: 
    • Interaction: 
    • Skills: 

     

    RANGER:

    Show
    • Combat: 
    • Exploration: 
    • Interaction: 
    • Skills: 

     

      Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

       

      Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

       

      Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

      Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

       

      I would say that fighters get some exploration in the athletics skill. It's basically your running, jumping, climbing skill that anyone who wants to do anything at all with strenuous travel will want.

       

      I can't decide if that's a flaw in the skill system or not, but it does mean the fighter does have the option to have quite a strong exploration skill at their disposal and they're naturally inclined toward str as a class, so they're going to be quite good at it most of the time.

       

      The barbarian and monk are in the same boat: more options than the fighter, but only just and they have to pick one.

       

       

      I guess the real question is what people actually want. I personally don't see any need at all to expand their options 'cause I see the skills as enough. I also don't see interaction as a pillar at all 'cause basically if someone roleplays appropriately and well they can pretty much trump whatever rolls are going on, but that's just me.

       

      So yeah, what counts as an "interaction option" and what counts as an "exploration option?" Do the skills not count? Do they need a subclass ability? Does the fact that they really only want one feat + max one stat and then they can go focus on more interaciton or exploration things if they choose matter here?

       

      What about racial abilities?

       

      What assumptions do you make about the DC chart? For example, most DCs I pick are 15 or 10. That makes a +3-+5 attribute on its own quite potent at either exploring or social endeavours.

       

       

       

      I guess what I'm getting at with all this is I don't think it's as simple as "give them stuff to do in X area of the game," because I actually see all characters as having something to do by virtue of how I apply the DC table and how my games are generally run (heavy rp, a strong tendency to grant advantage or simply waive rolls where the rp is good and appropriate).

      kadim wrote:

      I would say that fighters get some exploration in the athletics skill. It's basically your running, jumping, climbing skill that anyone who wants to do anything at all with strenuous travel will want.

       

      I can't decide if that's a flaw in the skill system or not, but it does mean the fighter does have the option to have quite a strong exploration skill at their disposal and they're naturally inclined toward str as a class, so they're going to be quite good at it most of the time.

       

      The barbarian and monk are in the same boat: more options than the fighter, but only just and they have to pick one.

       

      I guess the real question is what people actually want. I personally don't see any need at all to expand their options 'cause I see the skills as enough. I also don't see interaction as a pillar at all 'cause basically if someone roleplays appropriately and well they can pretty much trump whatever rolls are going on, but that's just me.

       

      So yeah, what counts as an "interaction option" and what counts as an "exploration option?" Do the skills not count? Do they need a subclass ability? Does the fact that they really only want one feat + max one stat and then they can go focus on more interaciton or exploration things if they choose matter here?

       

      What about racial abilities?

       

      What assumptions do you make about the DC chart? For example, most DCs I pick are 15 or 10. That makes a +3-+5 attribute on its own quite potent at either exploring or social endeavours.

       

      I guess what I'm getting at with all this is I don't think it's as simple as "give them stuff to do in X area of the game," because I actually see all characters as having something to do by virtue of how I apply the DC table and how my games are generally run (heavy rp, a strong tendency to grant advantage or simply waive rolls where the rp is good and appropriate).

      I am strictly talking about the Class Features, not background, race, or feats. Those are all excellent areas to add additional options, I agree, but they are distinct from a character's Class.

       

      Yes, Athletics can help in Exploration. I think most Fighters probably choose this skill. But remember Exploration also includes noticing/finding things (Wis/Int), sneaking (Dex), knowledge/lore (Int), and survival type things (Wis). The Fighter is extremely lacking in most of those areas. Many Fighters will have a decent Dexterity for Stealth, but their metal armor tends to negate that via Disadvantage.

       

      Every class gets skills, but non-warrior classes tend to get skills that help in Exploration and Interaction, whilst still maintaining a strong combat ability. Not to mention most classes have Ability Scores that directly synergize with skills, class features, Exploration, and Interaction. A Paladin for example has a moderate Charisma. This helps them with Persuasion and some Paladin abilities. The Mage's Intelligence Skills directly synergize with their primary class abilites. However, Fighters and Barbarians are not so lucky. The Monk at least has good Wisdom, despite having mostly selfish class features.

       

      So what I'm looking for is options. Does it HURT other classes to design some non-combat support into the Fighter? Because I don't think it hurts any class, and it benefits the Fighter. That's a win-win. I'm not looking for the Fighter to out-perform another class, necessarily, but they should have a chance to be competitive. Skills are one possible way to do this, but not the only way. Especially since most classes only get ONE class skill proficiency (ignoring background, just talking Class), yet still have a chance to meaningfully contribute to all tiers of play.

       

      Tell me. What does the Fighter Class get to help in Exploration and Interaction? What class features?

       

      Here's another way to ask the question: What does the Stereotypical / Average Fighter do during Interaction tier play? How do they approach this tier of the game? What is normally expected of them in this situation? What strengths do that have in this field?

       

      If we're talking about the Combat Tier, you can answer that question for Fighters. Fighters excel at Combat by having good hp, good armor, and good weapons. They have class abilites that support and improve hp, armor, and weapons. They are expected to be in the thick of things and survive. They are the masters of combat.

       

      But now try to answer the question for Fighters in the Exploration and Interaction tiers. What's the answer? It's hard to think of one, isn't it? And that's the problem.

      Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

       

      Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

       

      Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

      Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

       

      All classes get roughly equal treatment from a skills list or other similar mechanic. No more "rogues get like 15 skills from this list" vs "fighters get 2 skills from this much shorter list". Instead, everybody picks 8 skills from this same list, provided they can explain it with proper backstory.

       

      That solves about 70% of the problem right there. The remaining trick is mostly "how to balance skills with magic". The easiest - I won't say best - way is to simply require magic spells to still require some sort of skill roll or magic roll that makes skills a viable alternative instead of "just magic fix it!". Another idea is to have magic be "expensive" - that is, it uses up some significant resource that is not too easy to come by (be it gold, magic dust, daily slots of something like surges or daily spell uses).

      Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

      Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

      AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

      Recently my brother streamed a playthrough of Baldur's Gate, Enhanced Edition, and now he's playing through KotOR II: The Sith Lords, and one thing I think is really cool that both games do is offer your charisma bonus to your allies' attack rolls. Now, I know that's a combat thing, but that just sounds so appropriate for a fighter. That's something that could even apply to other things, like your fighter's charisma bonus to other rolls made by members of the party. One thing the fighter definitely deserves is all the athletic stuff. If it involves climbing, running, swimming, jumping, the fighter should be good at it.

       

      There should also be some kind of class feature like, "extraordinary strength," or something like that that enables fighters to do thing like get a big bonus to strength checks, not damage or attack rolls or anything like that, just the strength checks, this way they can do things like hold the rope to keep the boat from being carried away by rapids, stop the Temple-of-Doom boulder rolling at everyone, act as a living pillar for those slow-crush lowering ceilings, or be able to smash through walls by shoulder-checking them. There was a game way back when called Marvel: Ultimate Alliance that I still play occasionally, and they did something like this. Some of the heroes had the identifier, "superhuman strength," which let them do things like lift massive obstacles that blocked the way to optional areas and stuff like that. I think giving a similar trait to the fighter might be a good idea.

       

      The thing to remember about fighters, is that they aren't just random people who know how to use heavy armor and lots of weapons. They all have a story, they all come from somewhere. Some of them used to be knights, or sergeants in an army, or what have you. Well, most of them have no formal position anymore and are basically sellswords, mercenaries. Well, most places, realistically, would require mercenaries to get some sort of license or permit that lets them ply their trade. Maybe when local authorities are stone-walling them, fighter flashes his permit and gets waved through, or at least garners some bonus to a persuasion roll. I could see this working for normal people too. Local thugs being stubborn, show 'em the badge, followed by the line, "I can do whatever the f*** I want to you so long as you're alive after I'm done," they should be talking pretty quick. All kinds of ways to model something like that. Maybe the fighter also has contacts back at the old job, people willing to do some gopher work and put good words in the right ears.

      Oh all the money that e'er I spent,I spent it in good company And all the harm that e'er I've done, Alas, it was to none but me, And all I've done for want of wit, To memory now I can't recall, So fill to me the parting glass. Good night and joy be with you all

      I think the basic issue I'm encountering when trying to address this is no class exists in isolation. A class always comes with backgrounds and races, sometimes feats. The average DC used in a game has a tremendous impact on how useful raw attributes are as well, and all classes come with attributes too. And since all classes come with skills, we need to consider those skills as part of the class even if we look at the class features in isolation.

       

      So really what I see is a character that's got options to branch into whatever they like through backgrounds and a racial choice that then picks the character class, which we all ready know is approximately the top of the pile for defining specialty. The fact that they define specialty with class first, then race, then everything else tells me that the class is intentionally leaving out certain areas so they can be the best at the specific bits they're meant to be the best at.

       

      I don't think it hurts to expand options. It certainly doesn't hurt any other class, really, unless you're actually just poaching the features from another class and pasting it into the barbarian or whatever.

       

      So what class features? Skills. Skill options are defined by class, and so they are a class feature. I do think there's something kind of unsatisfying about that though so I can see why someone might feel like something's missing. I like their basic approach to skills in the packet, but I think it leaves a lot to be desired when you sit down and make a character.

       

      But really, what do other classes get? It's established that spells can't trump anything at all as a rule of thumb, so a mage without the skill to back up their spell is not going to be able to stand in for someone in a particular area of expertise through spells alone. Aside from skills, no class really gets a whole lot apart from the rogue and the bard... and the rogue does it mostly through skills and class abilities that strengthen skills. The bard has some bard song which is pretty cool for interaciton, but most of their stuff isn't actually to do with exploring or interacting so much as buffing friends in a fight or debuffing enemies. Compared to the other classes it's something as opposed to nothing, but it's still not very much.

       

      So really, skills are your way into the non combat side of the game right now. Spells help, but without the skills the spell isn't anywhere near as useful as we tend to think when we consider spells in D&D (which is probably for the best, but it does throw me for a loop).

      Could we just nerf spells some more? I'm concerned that giving every class special non-combat abilities is going to raise the baseline expectation so that skill proficiency doesn't cut it anymore. If you need a special class-based edge in order to remain competetive, 

      The metagame is not the game.

      Saelorn wrote:
      Could we just nerf spells some more? I'm concerned that giving every class special non-combat abilities is going to raise the baseline expectation so that skill proficiency doesn't cut it anymore. If you need a special class-based edge in order to remain competetive, 

       

      Spells are fine where they are. Though I'd like to see some kind of vitalizing variant for "caster fatigue." And what baseline expectation is this, and who's doing the expecting?

      Oh all the money that e'er I spent,I spent it in good company And all the harm that e'er I've done, Alas, it was to none but me, And all I've done for want of wit, To memory now I can't recall, So fill to me the parting glass. Good night and joy be with you all

      Thisishowitends wrote:
      And what baseline expectation is this, and who's doing the expecting?

      When the party asks who is going to climb that wall, or who is going to talk us past those guards, do you feel confident in being the one to do that? How much do you need before you can feel confident? Is proficiency enough? Or do you need a high ability score to back that up? Or do you need a specialized class feature on top of that?
      The metagame is not the game.

      Saelorn wrote:

       

      Thisishowitends wrote:
      And what baseline expectation is this, and who's doing the expecting?

       

      When the party asks who is going to climb that wall, or who is going to talk us past those guards, do you feel confident in being the one to do that? How much do you need before you can feel confident? Is proficiency enough? Or do you need a high ability score to back that up? Or do you need a specialized class feature on top of that?

       

      I would suppose that depends on the DC, and how low/high it is, amongst other factors. What do we expect to find on the other side of the wall? Is their danger of the guard going aggro if you fail to persuade him? Assuming no other major unknown complications, I might say whoever has the highest numbers. If people all have equal numbers, I don't know, flip a coin?

       

      I think I failed to divine the answer to my questions within your answer. I'm guessing this is the lead-up?

      Oh all the money that e'er I spent,I spent it in good company And all the harm that e'er I've done, Alas, it was to none but me, And all I've done for want of wit, To memory now I can't recall, So fill to me the parting glass. Good night and joy be with you all

      The baseline expectation is a very real concern with regard to who can do what. It's an issue inherent with class sytems, in general and one that D&D has suffered with specifically since they made skills something more than an optional static +2.

       

      One of the things I love about Next is the can-do attitude it fosters. And it does it by basically giving us next to nothing with regard to mechanical tools for anything outside of combat (and comparatively little even then). Whether that strategy is good or bad is a point of debate, but the result at my game table is fantastic. If each class is loaded up with abilities to influence this kind of social game or that kind of exploring, then it runs the risk of leaving people with the impression that you have to have features to do something properly. That only compounds the problem of some classes being inherently better at this interaction or that exploration thing than others and sidelines anyone who hasn't picked the thing that enhances their performance for that particular encounter or sequence. I'm incredibly wary of giving classes abilities for everything that supplant the attribute check system, especially if those abilities come at the cost of something the class is meant to be good at.

       

      The big issue is D&D doesn't do normal. Normal challenges without any curve ball situations might come up, but you don't actually have to roll to find out what happens in those situations and nor should you. The dice are there to add tension to the game. If you're rolling to see how you do on a nature hike, then there's a problem unless something poisonous stings you along the way or someone shows up and tries to stick sharp metal into your spleen, but that's not normal.

       

      So if you give people specialist tools to deal with particularly hard situations, but in D&D all situations are categorically defined as particularly hard, you end up with people feeling like they shouldn't try without that feature.

       

       

      I could see each class having 3 concurrent subclasses for combat, interaction and exploration and features to pick for each one, but I feel like that's just making up mechanics for the sake of mechanics and I don't see what that would do that the ability scores don't do apart from discourage folks from trying things outside their milieu.

      It depends how much the fighter is better at combat than anyone else.  If they are really by far the best, then they don't deserve extra skills and features for exloration and interaction.  This said, within swimming and climbing, and jumping, and also athletics and balance, the fighters, barbarians, and monks of the world are already among the best at exploration.  Interaction, also, will always depend on who the characters are, both individually in terms of their personality (for which only the player can be looked to), and the people spoken to.  The 2nd edition rules for reactions were superior, all things considered, so everyone should check those out.  People could be nudged from one category of hostility or friendliness to another, and if they started at two extremes it would be harder.

      Thisishowitends wrote:

      I think I failed to divine the answer to my questions within your answer. I'm guessing this is the lead-up?

      It's not a trick question. Barring unusual circumstances, you want the person with the best numbers to be making the check. If there were no classes or skills or feats, you'd send the strongest person to climb the wall. If you have skills, then you send the one with the highest (Strength modifier + proficiency bonus). If you have class abilities, then it's whoever has the best (Strength modifier + proficiency bonus + class bonus).

       

      If fighters gained +5 to Athletics or Intimidation or whatever, on top of skill proficiency and ability modifier, then anyone who only has skill proficiency and the ability modifier is going to be behind the curve. Suddenly, it doesn't matter if you're proficient or strong, because the fighter gets the job anyway. If the fighter doesn't gain that class bonus, then anyone who is strong and proficient can do it.

       

      It's why I would prefer if they kept skill bonuses outside of the class.

      The metagame is not the game.

      In the spirit of the season, let's take a look at what fighters DO have in comparison to earlier editions:

       

      1. Equitable skill allocation. In 3e fighters only got 2+Int mod skill points per level and had a very restricted list of class skills. In Next they have just as many skills as anyone except rogues, bards and rangers (which is understandable), and class skill restrictions are gone. Plus they're not missing out on bonus skills for having a low intelligence. So the playing field is much more level than it once was.

       

      2. Feats. Sure, in 3e they got tons of feats... All restricted to "combat feats." Now a fighter has 7 chances to broaden his skill in non-combat areas of the game if he so chooses.

       

      ...That's all I have for now. So while I definitely would be in favor of more non-combat stuff for fighters and others, we shouldn't be hyperbolic by saying Next offers them NOTHING outside of combat. It offers the. Exactly what it offers every other class, which is a better baseline than it was in previous editions.

      SirAntoine wrote:
      The 2nd edition rules for reactions were superior, all things considered, so everyone should check those out.  People could be nudged from one category of hostility or friendliness to another, and if they started at two extremes it would be harder.

      When you summarize it like that, it really brings to light how very little reaction rules have changed over the editions.

      ClockworkNecktie wrote:

      In the spirit of the season, let's take a look at what fighters DO have in comparison to earlier editions:

       

      1. Equitable skill allocation. In 3e fighters only got 2+Int mod skill points per level and had a very restricted list of class skills. In Next they have just as many skills as anyone except rogues, bards and rangers (which is understandable), and class skill restrictions are gone. Plus they're not missing out on bonus skills for having a low intelligence. So the playing field is much more level than it once was.

       

      2. Feats. Sure, in 3e they got tons of feats... All restricted to "combat feats." Now a fighter has 7 chances to broaden his skill in non-combat areas of the game if he so chooses.

       

      ...That's all I have for now. So while I definitely would be in favor of more non-combat stuff for fighters and others, we shouldn't be hyperbolic by saying Next offers them NOTHING outside of combat. It offers the. Exactly what it offers every other class, which is a better baseline than it was in previous editions.

      The problem is that the other classes get exactly the same as fighters, and yet still get to be good at non-combat and combat situations as well.  The fighter can only be good at combat situations, or else he gimps his combat ability in order to work with non-combat stuff (by taking non-combat feats or skills instead of combaty stuff).  As well, when wearing armor, the fighter does half of his skills at a less than optimal level anyway, so it becomes a choice again of be good at combat or do your non-combaty stuff, not both.

       

      Every class should offer something unique that you can't get any other way than being that class.  Maybe fighters ignore all armor penalties.  Maybe fighters can get extra endurance checks or bonus strength checks. Maybe fighters can ignore the first hit of any battle (wait that's a combat ability...dammit).  Maybe fighters can get bonuses on checks when dealing with other warrior classes.  I can't remember, but someone had the suggestion of fighters gaining an intimidate bonus when above half health.   

       

      I know that I would like to see support within the rules for having the wise fighter, or the intelligent fighter, someone that survives due to his wits rather than his brawn.  If you want to take an Int or Cha or Wis based fighter, you can essentially write off your character, unless you already have high stats in your other 3 major abilities. 

       

      What would be also nice is having a "stamina" type stat for combat, which fighters could excel at and others need to be careful with.  This stat/ability would be something that controls how long you can perform in combat at an optimal level.  Something like if a fighter is above 1/2 health he has unlimited, maybe dropping to 5 after that while every other class can have 4, 3, or 2 "physical exertions" and then their rolls are at -1 or -2, or they have to rest for a turn first or something.  Then you have that differentiation for fighters being able to be "superior" at combat over all other classes, giving them a unique ability that makes them feel like a fighter.

       

      AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

       

      SirAntoine wrote:
      The 2nd edition rules for reactions were superior, all things considered, so everyone should check those out.  People could be nudged from one category of hostility or friendliness to another, and if they started at two extremes it would be harder.

       

      When you summarize it like that, it really brings to light how very little reaction rules have changed over the editions.

       

      Rather than just saying that, you might explain how people can use the rules you would point them to instead in like fashion.  I know there could be rules for setting DC's high or low, for example, which is like accomplishing the same thing.  The 2nd edition rules I point to, though, are the most fun to use in my opinion, and also the most descriptive.

      Lord_Jaroh wrote:

       

      ClockworkNecktie wrote:

      In the spirit of the season, let's take a look at what fighters DO have in comparison to earlier editions:

       

      1. Equitable skill allocation. In 3e fighters only got 2+Int mod skill points per level and had a very restricted list of class skills. In Next they have just as many skills as anyone except rogues, bards and rangers (which is understandable), and class skill restrictions are gone. Plus they're not missing out on bonus skills for having a low intelligence. So the playing field is much more level than it once was.

       

      2. Feats. Sure, in 3e they got tons of feats... All restricted to "combat feats." Now a fighter has 7 chances to broaden his skill in non-combat areas of the game if he so chooses.

       

      ...That's all I have for now. So while I definitely would be in favor of more non-combat stuff for fighters and others, we shouldn't be hyperbolic by saying Next offers them NOTHING outside of combat. It offers the. Exactly what it offers every other class, which is a better baseline than it was in previous editions.

      The problem is that the other classes get exactly the same as fighters, and yet still get to be good at non-combat and combat situations as well.  The fighter can only be good at combat situations, or else he gimps his combat ability in order to work with non-combat stuff (by taking non-combat feats or skills instead of combaty stuff).  As well, when wearing armor, the fighter does half of his skills at a less than optimal level anyway, so it becomes a choice again of be good at combat or do your non-combaty stuff, not both.

       

       

      Sorry, but I think every sentence here is just factually incorrect.

       

      Other classes don't get the same as fighters because they don't get as many feats.

      The fighter is strong enough in combat that even if he never spends a single feat upping his combat capacity he will still be a good combatant. And ALL skills are mostly "non-combat skills." 

      And armor only affects stealth rolls, not "half of his skills." And a fighter can go with dex instead of strength if he wants to anyway.

       

      Now, Im certainly not opposed to martial classes getting more out of combat. But I kind of like extra feats as a way of achieving that. You can play a wizard or cleric without ever being forced to spend a class ability on a "non-combat" aspect of your character; why shouldn't fighters get the same choice as to where they focus their efforts?

      SirAntoine wrote:

       

      AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

       

      SirAntoine wrote:
      The 2nd edition rules for reactions were superior, all things considered, so everyone should check those out.  People could be nudged from one category of hostility or friendliness to another, and if they started at two extremes it would be harder.

       

      When you summarize it like that, it really brings to light how very little reaction rules have changed over the editions.

       

      Rather than just saying that, you might explain how people can use the rules you would point them to instead in like fashion.  I know there could be rules for setting DC's high or low, for example, which is like accomplishing the same thing.  The 2nd edition rules I point to, though, are the most fun to use in my opinion, and also the most descriptive.

      I don't think I need to explain to people how to read their books.  Or at least I didn't, until you made me say it and I remembered where I was.  The 2e rules, as you said, are set up such that NPCs have a certain disposition toward PCs.  This disposition can be changed, if the PCs play nice, which will often involve a dice roll.  The chance of success for that roll will change based on what the NPC's current disposition is, as well as situational factors and the PC's charisma.  My point is, this same summary is spot on for every edition after 2e as well.  

      Lord_Jaroh wrote:

      I know that I would like to see support within the rules for having the wise fighter, or the intelligent fighter, someone that survives due to his wits rather than his brawn.  If you want to take an Int or Cha or Wis based fighter, you can essentially write off your character, unless you already have high stats in your other 3 major abilities. 

      That's the nature of a class-based game, though. Mages need Int, and could care less about Wisdom or Charisma. Rogues need Dex, Clerics need Wisdom, and Barbarians need Strength. If you want to play a Charisma-based Fighter, then you don't want to play a Fighter.
      The metagame is not the game.

      AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

       

      SirAntoine wrote:

       

      AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

       

      SirAntoine wrote:
      The 2nd edition rules for reactions were superior, all things considered, so everyone should check those out.  People could be nudged from one category of hostility or friendliness to another, and if they started at two extremes it would be harder.

       

      When you summarize it like that, it really brings to light how very little reaction rules have changed over the editions.

       

      Rather than just saying that, you might explain how people can use the rules you would point them to instead in like fashion.  I know there could be rules for setting DC's high or low, for example, which is like accomplishing the same thing.  The 2nd edition rules I point to, though, are the most fun to use in my opinion, and also the most descriptive.

       

      I don't think I need to explain to people how to read their books.  Or at least I didn't, until you made me say it and I remembered where I was.  The 2e rules, as you said, are set up such that NPCs have a certain disposition toward PCs.  This disposition can be changed, if the PCs play nice, which will often involve a dice roll.  The chance of success for that roll will change based on what the NPC's current disposition is, as well as situational factors and the PC's charisma.  My point is, this same summary is spot on for every edition after 2e as well.  

       

      Your post reminds me we're all human.  We can get tired, or just have a bad day and some of it will naturally carry over into our interactions online.  You should get some rest, and drink plenty of water.  A lof of people don't know that in the coldest of Winter, it can be the dryest time of the year.  Anyway, I hope you didn't mean to insult me or to trash Gary Gygax or any other bad action.  We should all try to be more forgiving when we feel challenged or insulted online.

      Saelorn wrote:

       

      Lord_Jaroh wrote:

      I know that I would like to see support within the rules for having the wise fighter, or the intelligent fighter, someone that survives due to his wits rather than his brawn.  If you want to take an Int or Cha or Wis based fighter, you can essentially write off your character, unless you already have high stats in your other 3 major abilities. 

       

      That's the nature of a class-based game, though. Mages need Int, and could care less about Wisdom or Charisma. Rogues need Dex, Clerics need Wisdom, and Barbarians need Strength. If you want to play a Charisma-based Fighter, then you don't want to play a Fighter.

       

      I would second this, especially if we're to assign ability scores.  It's not like everyone couldn't still find some use for a high score that isn't a prime requisite, but variants of the fundamental classes "themed" to other ability scores seems too contradictory.

      SirAntoine wrote:
      Your post reminds me we're all human.  We can get tired, or just have a bad day and some of it will naturally carry over into our interactions online.  You should get some rest, and drink plenty of water.  A lof of people don't know that in the coldest of Winter, it can be the dryest time of the year.  Anyway, I hope you didn't mean to insult me or to trash Gary Gygax or any other bad action.  We should all try to be more forgiving when we feel challenged or insulted online.

      Given that you came into this thread and told everyone that your favorite rules are superior, then gave as evidence ways in which they are the same as the rules you claim they are superior to, I find it rather condescending that you think I am the one who needs to grab a glass of water and watch what I say.

      I think you really just need to understand that many checks will be DC 10 or 12, and only a few will be 15, 18, 20.

       

      As such, rogues and bards with expertise will be exceptional.    They'll be able to handle some of the toughest challenges, but everyone else, will be able to have a pretty good chance at most of the DC 10-12 checks.   The reason a person plays a rogue or bard is to be exceptional in out of combat situations.

       

      I played a fighter in one session, and I never felt like I could not do out of combat things.   I could use my strength and athletics skill for a number of things (opening doors, hatches, climbing, etc).   I used my charisma to try to soothe a wounded old woman (who turned out to be a hag just acting so she and her sisters could surprise us...it worked), but I played my character and felt fine just trying to comfort her.      I made perception checks and even some intelligence checks at times.   Truly, I felt like I could contribute in many ways, not just combat.

       

       

      A Brave Knight of WTF

       

      Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

       

       

      AzoriusGuildmage wrote:

       

      SirAntoine wrote:
      Your post reminds me we're all human.  We can get tired, or just have a bad day and some of it will naturally carry over into our interactions online.  You should get some rest, and drink plenty of water.  A lof of people don't know that in the coldest of Winter, it can be the dryest time of the year.  Anyway, I hope you didn't mean to insult me or to trash Gary Gygax or any other bad action.  We should all try to be more forgiving when we feel challenged or insulted online.

       

      Given that you came into this thread and told everyone that your favorite rules are superior, then gave as evidence ways in which they are the same as the rules you claim they are superior to, I find it rather condescending that you think I am the one who needs to grab a glass of water and watch what I say.

       

      I'm sorry.  In this example, I should have just mentioned the other rules and not called them superior.  I never assume, by the way, that anyone knows anything about D&D pre-3E.  I don't think those editions are ever looked to when they have written about things being tackled today, either by designers or many individuals.  There was a system for almost anything, at least once, and I reject the flat assumption many have that any newer edition is always "superior".

       

      I would rather keep our discssions very friendly, you know.  The other day someone put a quote of Gary Gygax's up saying that people wanting more realism in D&D were "scoundrels", and that really hurt my feelings.  I know people who I tried to impress as DM, who said it wasn't realistic enough.  They wanted more depth, and more knowledge of real life skills and dialogue on my part.  There are so many areas where realism is actually looked for, and applauded.

       

      It seems the designers are trying to come up with new rules to "fill all the times you make decisions" in the game, so why not evaluate how, more broadly, those expectations can be realistic?  Again, at the end of the day, there will be many people who demand that before they will even give you their respect.

      Ramzour wrote:

      What can the system do to make sure that the Fighter Class is useful outside of combat? Same question for Barbarians and Monks.

      Merge fighter and rogue.

      SirAntoine wrote:
      I'm sorry.  In this example, I should have just mentioned the other rules and not called them superior.
      Apology accepted.  I'm sorry I got a bit testy. 
      I never assume, by the way, that anyone knows anything about D&D pre-3E.  I don't think those editions are ever looked to when they have written about things being tackled today, either by designers or many individuals.  There was a system for almost anything, at least once, and I reject the flat assumption many have that any newer edition is always "superior".
      I think you'll find that this is very much not the case.  I own and have played both AD&Ds, and I have the books for older stuff, but have only played that a few times.  Many people around here have a similar story.  What I think the disconnect is, is that most people simply don't have the same reverence for 2e that you do.  Different folks with different strokes, you know?

       

      I would rather keep our discssions very friendly, you know.  The other day someone put a quote of Gary Gygax's up saying that people wanting more realism in D&D were "scoundrels", and that really hurt my feelings.  I know people who I tried to impress as DM, who said it wasn't realistic enough.  They wanted more depth, and more knowledge of real life skills and dialogue on my part.  There are so many areas where realism is actually looked for, and applauded.

       

      It seems the designers are trying to come up with new rules to "fill all the times you make decisions" in the game, so why not evaluate how, more broadly, those expectations can be realistic?  Again, at the end of the day, there will be many people who demand that before they will even give you their respect.

      I don't think the designers are particularly doing that at all.  I also think that you overestimate the amount of people who demand realism from a camapign, at least the way you describe it.  I know I've never had that sort of thing requested from me when I've DMed.  And I know when I've wanted more of DMs, it's not more realism, it's usually more deliberation and insight about how they go about things.

      Thisishowitends wrote:

       

      There should also be some kind of class feature like, "extraordinary strength," or something like that that enables fighters to do thing like get a big bonus to strength checks, not damage or attack rolls or anything like that, just the strength checks, this way they can do things like hold the rope to keep the boat from being carried away by rapids, stop the Temple-of-Doom boulder rolling at everyone, act as a living pillar for those slow-crush lowering ceilings, or be able to smash through walls by shoulder-checking them. There was a game way back when called Marvel: Ultimate Alliance that I still play occasionally, and they did something like this. Some of the heroes had the identifier, "superhuman strength," which let them do things like lift massive obstacles that blocked the way to optional areas and stuff like that. I think giving a similar trait to the fighter might be a good idea.

       

      There's another thread about the "signal to noise" ratio in ability checks that I think relates to the above. Basically the problem is that even if you take a case where a fighter has 20 strength and the next strongest party member has a 10 strength, it's not really all that unlikely that the fighter will fail to perform some feat of strength (bending the bars, lifting the rock, etc.) and then the nerd with the spellbook will succeed.  (And the same is true for all ability rolls, not just strength.)

       

      The suggestion above could be at least partially implemented simply by toning down the randomness of ability checks and making the ability itself count for more.

       

      Also, I like the OP's first suggestion; similar to "Fighting Style" that a few of the classes have but more of an "Interaction Style". 

      "Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk

      SirAntoine wrote:

       

      Saelorn wrote:

       

      Lord_Jaroh wrote:

      I know that I would like to see support within the rules for having the wise fighter, or the intelligent fighter, someone that survives due to his wits rather than his brawn.  If you want to take an Int or Cha or Wis based fighter, you can essentially write off your character, unless you already have high stats in your other 3 major abilities. 

       

      That's the nature of a class-based game, though. Mages need Int, and could care less about Wisdom or Charisma. Rogues need Dex, Clerics need Wisdom, and Barbarians need Strength. If you want to play a Charisma-based Fighter, then you don't want to play a Fighter.

       

      I would second this, especially if we're to assign ability scores.  It's not like everyone couldn't still find some use for a high score that isn't a prime requisite, but variants of the fundamental classes "themed" to other ability scores seems too contradictory.

      Myself, I believe that they should make every stat useful to every class, so there is no determined "dump-stat".  Instead every stat means something and having a negative or a positive actually affects every class in a meaningful way.  It also would allow support for those wishing to play characters that are not strictly "by-the-book" and not be completely gimped out of the box.  You don't need "variants" of classes, simply make the abilities all useful.  Maybe a fighter can add his Int bonus to his attack rating for example, or his Cha to an rally bonus or his Wisdom to a tactical bonus.  That sort of thing.  You can still have a class based system and have stats useful to all classes, along with making every class unique in feel.  I don't see why it has to be such a simplistic system that discourages non-optimal play.

      Lord_Jaroh wrote:

      Myself, I believe that they should make every stat useful to every class, so there is no determined "dump-stat".  Instead every stat means something and having a negative or a positive actually affects every class in a meaningful way.

      That would be nice, but it might get sort of contrived at times. It would be hard to make every stat equally useful, and they kind of have it right now where every stat acts as a save at least, so it's minimally useful (in theory, at least). It's going to be hard to make mages care about Strength as long as they have at-will cantrips, though.
      The metagame is not the game.

      Lord_Jaroh wrote:

       

      SirAntoine wrote:

       

      Saelorn wrote:

       

      Lord_Jaroh wrote:

      I know that I would like to see support within the rules for having the wise fighter, or the intelligent fighter, someone that survives due to his wits rather than his brawn.  If you want to take an Int or Cha or Wis based fighter, you can essentially write off your character, unless you already have high stats in your other 3 major abilities. 

       

      That's the nature of a class-based game, though. Mages need Int, and could care less about Wisdom or Charisma. Rogues need Dex, Clerics need Wisdom, and Barbarians need Strength. If you want to play a Charisma-based Fighter, then you don't want to play a Fighter.

       

      I would second this, especially if we're to assign ability scores.  It's not like everyone couldn't still find some use for a high score that isn't a prime requisite, but variants of the fundamental classes "themed" to other ability scores seems too contradictory.

       

      Myself, I believe that they should make every stat useful to every class, so there is no determined "dump-stat".  Instead every stat means something and having a negative or a positive actually affects every class in a meaningful way.  It also would allow support for those wishing to play characters that are not strictly "by-the-book" and not be completely gimped out of the box.  You don't need "variants" of classes, simply make the abilities all useful.  Maybe a fighter can add his Int bonus to his attack rating for example, or his Cha to an rally bonus or his Wisdom to a tactical bonus.  That sort of thing.  You can still have a class based system and have stats useful to all classes, along with making every class unique in feel.  I don't see why it has to be such a simplistic system that discourages non-optimal play.

       

      The only way they can do this is to expand the design space of combat.

       

      What I mean is,  for 6 attrubutes to matter to each class,  then each class must have at least 6 "Features" so that there's at least one for each.  That leads into some *really* complicated design,  that would be really difficult to balance.

       

      At some point,  you're going to need a martial class whose fighting ability is governed by Int,  Wis,  Cha,  Con,  etc.  So you need combat variables that those things would affect,  and those variables have to be different from the one governed by Str and any other stat.  So you end up needing to add things like increased critical chance,  damage mitigation,  causing an opponent to take penalties to rolls,  etc.  Eventually you end up with a martial character who's governed by Int,  one who's governed by Wis,  etc,  and they're distinct from the Str Fighter.

       

      But at that point,  you've introduced new problems.  Now you have a whole bunch of other classes,  who aren't modifying those variables,  but must be balanced with those variables.  Further,  you still need to do the same thing for each other class.  So you have to introduce more variables,  especially with magic using classes.  But now you have to go back and rebalance all of those fighters with the new variables.

       

      Finally you're done,  and every class has a distinct variant governed by a distinct stat,  and you've ended up with a much wider set of variables that must be tracked and computed during combat.  Which significantly raises the barrier to entry for the game. 

       

      You can't just work within the existing confines,  because the confines are too narrow.  You have an attack roll,  damage,  an AC,  and HP's,  Four variables,  all of which are already covered,  using just three stats,  and Constitution and Dexterity aren't something you could base the character on right now,  so those two would need expanded.  You can't just give an attack bonus,  because then you're functionally identical to the Str fighter,  you're just using a different word to get the same result.  The Wizard is even worse,  he only cares about one stat,  you need to design in something for five other stats,  and find a way to do it such that it's comparable to the Int based Wizard's power,  without making a functionally identical variant.  The only choice is to expand the number of variables so that you have design space for the other stats.

       

      It can absolutely be done,  and I'd be happy to play that game.  But it does have drawbacks,  as you have to increase complexity,  and it makes it harder to acquire players.

      ClockworkNecktie wrote:

      In the spirit of the season, let's take a look at what fighters DO have in comparison to earlier editions:

       

      1. Equitable skill allocation. In 3e fighters only got 2+Int mod skill points per level and had a very restricted list of class skills. In Next they have just as many skills as anyone except rogues, bards and rangers (which is understandable), and class skill restrictions are gone. Plus they're not missing out on bonus skills for having a low intelligence. So the playing field is much more level than it once was.

       

      2. Feats. Sure, in 3e they got tons of feats... All restricted to "combat feats." Now a fighter has 7 chances to broaden his skill in non-combat areas of the game if he so chooses.

       

      ...That's all I have for now. So while I definitely would be in favor of more non-combat stuff for fighters and others, we shouldn't be hyperbolic by saying Next offers them NOTHING outside of combat. It offers the. Exactly what it offers every other class, which is a better baseline than it was in previous editions.

      I'm still struggling to see how the fighter specifically needs anything else, to be honest. The barbarian and monk have less opportunity to branch out than the fighter and really, I feel like they should be more central to the discussion 'cause the fighter at the minute really does have everything it could need or want.

      So, it seems that most of you failed to read my OP or your chose to ignore it. Because I specifically said that I want this thread to be for ideas, not arguing whether or not the ideas are needed. Thank you to the few that actually commented on the OP instead of arguing.

       

      Looking at the problem

      Let's take a look at the Interaction and Exploration tiers of play. What kind of things do they cover? What sort of checks govern a successful encounter in those tiers?

       

      Interaction: (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma)

      Convincing NPCs. Charisma (Deception, Intimidation, Persuasion)

      Knowledge/Lore. Intelligence (Arcana, History, Religion, Nature)

      Dealing with Animals. Wisdom (Animal Handling)

      Entertaining. Charisma (Performance)

      Discern true intentions. Wisdom (Insight)

      Find Rumors / Gossip. Charisma.

      Command Troops. Charisma.

      Communication without words. Intelligence

      Appraisal. Intelligence.

      Assemble a good disguise. Intelligence.

       

      Exploration: (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom)

      Movement. Strength (Athletics). Climb, Jump, Swim.

      Stealth. Dexterity (Stealth)

      Finding a Hidden object. Intelligence (Search)

      Noticing a Hidden object. Wisdom (Perception)

      Falling damage. good HP to survive. Fall damage reduction

      Knowledge/Lore. Intelligence (Arcana, History, Religion, Nature)

      General Survival. Wisdom (Survival)

      Diagnose Illness. Wisdom (Medicine)

      Surviving harsh physical conditions. Constitution Checks and/or Saving Throws.

      Balance and tricky footing. Dexterity Saving Throws.

      Grabbing or catching something heavy. Strength Saving Throws.

       

      Class Analysis:

      Ok, so now that we know which sort of ability checks need to be made in those tiers, let's see how the Fighter measures up. 

      Interaction: the Fighter has nothing to add here except for possibly Intimidation proficiency. Remember, I'm not talking about his natural ability scores, backgrounds, or feats...only the Fighter Class Features. However, many of the items in the Interaction list are things that a good warrior might be expected to do! Commanding troops is a big one, but Fighters get no specific bonus for that. One might expect that the Warrior would be the best at commanding troops (and not JUST because of natural Charisma talent).

      Exploration: the Fighter has a bit more success here because of his HP pool and ways to mitigate damage. He also has a potential Athletics proficiency (though that conflicts with Intimidation). His Strength and Constitution save proficiency helps. Stealth checks are going to be a problem with any decent armor though.

       

      So aside from one possible skill proficiency, two saves, and a bit more HP and damage mitigation, the Fighter lacks support in many areas of Interaction and Exploration. In fact, Stealth, which is a huge part of most games, is at a Disadvantage. Other classes at least have the benefit of Ability Score synergy with their primary class features. For example, even a Cleric that lacks Wisdom-based skill proficiencies will have a decent chance of success because they naturally have a good Wisdom. Plus, the Cleric has spells that can help in many different situations!

       

      For comparison, let's look at the Druid. 

      Interaction: Good wisdom synergy. Nature knowledge. Animal-based interaction spells.

      Exploration: Wildshape dominates in the Perception/Stealth/Movement areas. Good wisdom synergy. Utility spells.

       

      Or the Mage:

      Interaction: Good Intelligence synergy. Arcane knowledge (or others). Divination, Enchantment, and Illusion spells help greatly here, some of which are cantrips.

      Exploration: Light cantrip. Good Intelligence synergy. Knowledge skills. Good utility spells like Featherfall, Dimension Door, Spider Climb, and a million others.

       

      The Monk:

      Interaction: Good Wisdom synergy, but no specific skill proficiencies. Possible Knowledge Religion skill. At level 13, they can understand all communication.

      Exploration: Good Wisdom and Dexterity synergy. Slow Fall. Dexterity saves.

       

      the Barbarian:

      Interaction: possible Intimidation skill, nothing else.

      Exploration: improved movement. possible survival skill. Synergy with physical skills. Situational Strength Advantage during Rage.

       

       

      -------

      Conclusion:

      The Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk lack specific class feature support in most areas. They do tend to have synergy on physical ability checks and saves, but they lack non-physical support which is a MAJOR part of Interaction and a large part of Exploration.

       

      Solutions?

      Obviously we can't make Warriors good at EVERYTHING. They aren't Rogues or Bards, after all. However, given how they currently measure up, they could stand a few bumps here and there to round them out.

       

      Fighters: Some kind of ability or bonus to command troops. Knowledge of war, combat, military, equipment. Possible tool proficiencies like the hunting trap or first aid kit would make them useful in more situations. A blanket +5 bonus can be too good, so how about something limited? 

      Surge of Strength: You tap into a limited well of Strength and can perform incredible feats of physical prowess. You gain Advantage on your next Strength check. You must complete a Short Rest before using this ability again.

      Rally Troops!: You deliver a rousing speech to your allies about a difficult upcoming task. All allies within 10-ft of you gain an inspirational bonus to one upcoming check or save. Pick a skill or saving throw you have proficiency in. For the next minute, all affected allies are considered proficient in the chosen skill or saving throw. You must complete a Long Rest before using this ability again.

       

      Barbarians: Emphasize Barbarians are "natural" warriors. They get a speed bonus but that doesn't affect their jump distance. Maybe it should. Bring back the classic Barbarian "trap danger sense". The removal of automatic Barbarian illiteracy was a good decision. What if they had a separate mechanic for making Exceptional Strength checks that didn't rely on Rage (which is clearly a combat ability). Surge of Strength (see Fighter above) would work for them too.

       

      Monks: They need the most help in the Interaction tier. Perhaps they know more languages or have a bonus to communicate with hostile creatures because of their incredible inner calm. Their Tongues ability comes out of nowhere and it would make sense for them to get a few small things along the way that lead up to their level 13 ability. 

       

      Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

       

      Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

       

      Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

      Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

       

      If there are people telling you what they think, you should respect that.  Maybe they disagree, naturally, and they're trying to save you the trouble.  This thread doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Your ideas elsewhere bounce off people, who feel welcome to engage you in discourse.

      Ramzour, I'm sorry if I'm derailing your thread, but I simply disagree with your premise. I don't think classes need more to do to help them explore or interact, I don't believe that monks or anyone else are somehow behind anybody, and actually I think fighters are head and shoulders above everyone else in almost every way by virtue of their ability bumps.

       

      But I won't trouble you further with it and I hope you get some good ideas.

      kadim wrote:

      Ramzour, I'm sorry if I'm derailing your thread, but I simply disagree with your premise. I don't think classes need more to do to help them explore or interact, I don't believe that monks or anyone else are somehow behind anybody, and actually I think fighters are head and shoulders above everyone else in almost every way by virtue of their ability bumps.

       

      But I won't trouble you further with it and I hope you get some good ideas.

       

      Honestly, I agree with you.  If you think of the game as 1/3 combat, 1/3 exploration, and 1/3 interaction then it seems like Fighters "contribute" less than other classes,  But I have two problems with that premise:

       

      First, the games I play in are at LEAST 50% role-playing, so right away exploration and interaction drop to 1/6 of the game each. And fighters have just as much opportunity to role-play as any other class.

       

      Second, even in our role-playing heavy games, combat is a bigger part of the game than exploration and interaction. So not only do exploration and interaction drop even lower in the rankings, but fighters...unlike spell-casters...can go round after round after round without feeling like they are gimped because they've used their spells.  Sure, they might use up their Action Surge or Ki or whatever, but their basic attacks still feel more satisfying (to me, anyway) than cantrips do for a caster who has nothing else left.

      "Therefore, you are the crapper, I'm merely the vessel through which you crap." -- akaddk

      kadim wrote:
      Ramzour, I'm sorry if I'm derailing your thread, but I simply disagree with your premise. I don't think classes need more to do to help them explore or interact, I don't believe that monks or anyone else are somehow behind anybody, and actually I think fighters are head and shoulders above everyone else in almost every way by virtue of their ability bumps.

       

      But I won't trouble you further with it and I hope you get some good ideas.

      No, it's cool. I'm not trying to kick everyone out of the thread or anything. You and the others do raise some good points. In your playtest experiences, you've found that Fighters (and the rest) have not been noticeably behind the rest of the group. That's definitely valuable feedback.

       

      That said, however, I'm hoping to generate ideas with this thread. I'm not posting this just because I want to complain about how gimped Fighters are in social situations....rather I'm saying, "hey, this looks like a problem to me (in my games), so let's come up with ideas to solve the problem."

       

      Okay, so while I did ramble on a bit in my last post, I think I came up with some pretty neat ideas in the end. The Surge of Strength and Rally Troops abilities really seem to fit in line with the flavor of the Fighter. They offer a way for the Fighter to do something other than a naked Ability Check. 

       

      Surge of Strength: You tap into a limited well of Strength and can perform incredible feats of physical prowess. You gain Advantage on your next Strength check. You must complete a Short Rest before using this ability again.

       

      Rally Troops!: You deliver a rousing speech to your allies about a difficult upcoming task. All allies within 10-ft of you gain an inspirational bonus to one upcoming check or save. Pick a skill or saving throw you have proficiency in. For the next minute, all affected allies are considered proficient in the chosen skill or saving throw. You must complete a Long Rest before using this ability again.

       

      I want to see more ideas like this from all of you guys. A blanket +x to certain skills is boring and probably creates more problems than it solves. However, clever and flavorful mechanics like these give a player options without disrupting overall balance. I mean, honestly, would anyone complain if their Fighter had the awesome ability to Rally Troops once per day? The flavor of the mechanic is steeped heavily in combat (which screams Fighter ability!) but can be used outside of combat as well.

      Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

       

      Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

       

      Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

      Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

       

      There's nothing to say action surge couldn't be used outside of combat, come to think of it. Get up a collapsing wall to safety or somesuch.

      Ramzour wrote:

      Okay, so while I did ramble on a bit in my last post, I think I came up with some pretty neat ideas in the end. The Surge of Strength and Rally Troops abilities really seem to fit in line with the flavor of the Fighter. They offer a way for the Fighter to do something other than a naked Ability Check. 

      The problem with these as Fighter abilities is that they're iconic of other classes. Surge of Strength is what Barbarians are. Rally Troops! is what Bards have several abilities to do. That design space is covered. Of course, that goes down to the underlying problem that Fighters lack a coherent class identity, because any sort of flavor they might pick up is instead spun off into another class.

       

      The closest the Fighter has ever had to a unique gimmick was with Weapon Specialization. It's a bit of a stretch, but what if Fighters possessed the unique ability to determine the combat prowess of someone by looking at them? Maybe that's a Wisdom (15) check, or it only works on someone lower level than you, but it would expand the Fighter's role from just combat to include just before combat - giving the party an edge in determining whether to engage/intimidate/diplomacize.

       

      The only problem I see is that it would mean one less thing that anyone else could do. If your DM wanted to let anyone make a check to determine level, suddenly the Fighter ability would lose meaning (unless every else had to make a check, and Fighters had it automatically, or something like that).

      The metagame is not the game.

      there's nothing to say a subclass couldn't cover it though. I could see a warlord/marshal type dude having rally as a subclass ability.

       

      Ramzour is right about one thing though: keeping these things to actual abilities rather than advantage or bonuses stops the diversification from undermining the general "can-do" attitude I love so much. If someone has a power that is awesome in a given situation but not all situations, then they feel more like explorers or socialites without actually taking it away from everyone else.

       

      I think subclasses and feats are the answer in this specific variation of the rules, but I'm totally open to the possibility that the final 5e might not need or want that answer.