What should a Fighter fix do out of combat?

[Gideon Falcon]

I've been a big fan of trying to make martial classes a more viable option through Homebrew for a while, eagerly reading and writing (if not posting) various Fighter fixes and other warrior class fixes and martial systems all over the place. The biggest question I have is about one of the major problems people immediately bring up with almost any fighter fix is "It still doesn't have anything to do out of combat." I don't really understand this complaint.
See, I was always under the impression that out of combat was mostly a matter of role-play. Once you had a good bonus in social skills, a matter of ranks rather than class features, the only difference between a fighter and a wizard is the lack of mind control spells, and if you wanted mind control, you wouldn't play a warrior- it's not a question of effectiveness, but of playstyle.
So, the main point I'm trying to make is, if one were to create a warrior class fix, what does it need to have in order to have 'out of combat options?'

[Koo Rehtorb]

If you're asking about doing things out of combat in D&D it's not really a question of fixing the fighter, it's a question of fixing the system (or playing a different system).

[khadgar567]

Only fix fighter needs is spheres of might and skill books from drop dead studios rest is un needed garbage

[Mutazoia]

Fighters don't need a fix...casters do. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: When WOTC copy-pasta'd AD&D stuff into their pre-existing D20 engine, they threw out a lot of the balance with the bathwater, especially where casters were concerned. Casters used to be glass cannons....They could do some damage, but they were pretty squishy. Now they are just cannons (or Tac-Nukes at higher levels). They tried to make up for it by giving fighters extra feats but you and I know just how well that worked.

[Darth Ultron]

So, the main point I'm trying to make is, if one were to create a warrior class fix, what does it need to have in order to have 'out of combat options?'

Something to DO out of combat.

Take any spellcaster or class with abilities and skills. Outside of combat they can do a ton of stuff. D&D has roughly 1,000 Utility spells so spellcasters can do things outside of combat. Lots of classes have abilities and skills that can be used out of combat.

The fighter has none. If there is nothing to fight, the fighter can't do anything.

Think of even just 1st level. A spellcaster can pick from at least 30 (maybe more like 100) spells that let them do all sorts of non combat things. Even a cantrip, like mage hand, has billions of non-combat, but still useful and important uses. The characters need to move something, like say a key ring, presto the spellcaster can move it with mage hand. The fighter just sits back and waits for something to fight.

What to add, well my fighter fix has this gem: Action Points-The fighter gets one action point per level. Each action point can be spent each round to take an additional action each round. A move action costs one point, a standard action costs two points and a full round action costs three points.

I can say after years of playtesting the action points work out great. It's a beautiful thing to watch a 6th level fighter take four standard actions a round, or one full round action and six move actions or anything in between. It really, really, really gives fighters a very ''action move heroics/legendary feel''. While other characters do one action, a fighter is doing half a dozen. And best of all, it's very useful outside of combat too.

[hymer]

See, I was always under the impression that out of combat was mostly a matter of role-play. Once you had a good bonus in social skills, a matter of ranks rather than class features, the only difference between a fighter and a wizard is the lack of mind control spells, and if you wanted mind control, you wouldn't play a warrior- it's not a question of effectiveness, but of playstyle.
So, the main point I'm trying to make is, if one were to create a warrior class fix, what does it need to have in order to have 'out of combat options?'

Well, some of this will depend on what edition we're talking about. 'Nothing to do outside combat' might actually mean 'nothing to do outside combat that the CoDzilla and the wizard can't also do just as well'. The fighter can tend to fall into the role of fetch-and-carry, though anyone could do those things. The rogue is shadowing an NPC or using Thieves' Cant to check on news at the guild. The bard is putting her/his finger on the pulse of the town, gathering all the rumours that could hold important intelligence for the next assignment, and at the same time improving the party's popularity around town. Meanwhile the full casters are using divination spells to ascertain the exact nature of the foe they are about to face, or making or preparing magical stuff to use in the fight.
And the fighter is probably just providing security for the bard, just in case - not that the bard won't be the first of the two to notice trouble brewing, and likely to be able to evade or quell it before it becomes violence, and do it better than the fighter.
Those are all things the characters can do given their skills and abilities. And the fighter's options are very limited in comparison. Fighters tend to be likewise hindered in scouting, dealing with dangerous or obstructing mechanisms, getting rid of sticky effects like curses and poison, and so on and on.

So what you're looking for seems to be some stuff the fighter can do, which relies on a mechanical ability provided by the class. In 3.5, I've (among other stuff) given the fighter two additional skill points per level, and two extra class skills of their own choice.

[gkathellar]

See, I was always under the impression that out of combat was mostly a matter of role-play. Once you had a good bonus in social skills, a matter of ranks rather than class features, the only difference between a fighter and a wizard is the lack of mind control spells, and if you wanted mind control, you wouldn't play a warrior- it's not a question of effectiveness, but of playstyle.

Take another look through the PHB's spells. Spellcasters can bless places and objects, raise the dead, create extra-dimensional spaces, manipulate the weather, put people to sleep, drive them insane, inflict all sorts of illnesses and ailments, summon or create vast amounts of material, turn one material into another, create life, reshape a wide variety of materials to their will, call planar beings to carry out tasks, utilize various forms of telekinesis, fly, teleport, be in multiple places simultaneously, repair broken objects instantaneously, determine the truthfulness of a speaker with perfect accuracy, walk on water, breathe water, create food and water, send messages vast distances in an instant, access the entire schools of divination and illusion, and man this isn't even the whole PHB. Also there's that whole near-monopoly on item crafting.

Hell, on its own, the humble alter self can wreck whole stories.

So, the main point I'm trying to make is, if one were to create a warrior class fix, what does it need to have in order to have 'out of combat options?'

See above. It needs to have tools with which to affect the story beyond merely the ability to make things dead (which everybody can do) and be successful on difficult ability checks.

[Keltest]

Fighters need more skill points, at the least. 4+int minimum. Open up all the social skills (sands bluff) as fighter class skills, because theyre often seen as leaders of men.

Other than that, its largely a question of creating obstacles that the fighter can overcome with strength or dexterity.

[Cosi]

\See, I was always under the impression that out of combat was mostly a matter of role-play. Once you had a good bonus in social skills, a matter of ranks rather than class features, the only difference between a fighter and a wizard is the lack of mind control spells, and if you wanted mind control, you wouldn't play a warrior- it's not a question of effectiveness, but of playstyle.

I think the whole "if you wanted <X magic ability>, you wouldn't play a Fighter" line is bunk. Jedi are Fighters (in combat), but they have mind control. People want the baskets of abilities they want, and excluding things for reasons like "you made a sword guy when you should have made a staff guy" is dumb and bad. If someone wants to kill things with a sword and also have teleport there's no conceptual reason they shouldn't be able to do that.

Of course, the idea that non-combat is "mostly roleplaying" misses the point too. Part of the appeal of high level abilities like teleport or plane shift is the ability to move the story without having to justify the move to the DM. Is the effect of "I cast teleport" the same as roleplaying out finding a Wizard, paying him for his services, and being teleported? Sure, in a bluntly mechanical sense, but looking at it from the perspective the narrative, it's radically different.

If you're asking about doing things out of combat in D&D it's not really a question of fixing the fighter, it's a question of fixing the system (or playing a different system).

I mean, D&D has a bunch of stuff that does things out of combat. People do campaigns that aren't just dungeon crawling fine.

Fighters don't need a fix...casters do. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: When WOTC copy-pasta'd AD&D stuff into their pre-existing D20 engine, they threw out a lot of the balance with the bathwater, especially where casters were concerned. Casters used to be glass cannons....They could do some damage, but they were pretty squishy. Now they are just cannons (or Tac-Nukes at higher levels). They tried to make up for it by giving fighters extra feats but you and I know just how well that worked.

Whenever possible, balance should be achieved by buffs rather than nerfs. If you think AD&D/BECMI/whatever did it right, feel free to go play that instead of crapping over threads where people try to fix problems with the paradigms those games foisted on us.

[AceOfFools]

Things casters can do outside of combat:
*Bypass barriers using spells that open locks, warp wood, etc.
* Avoid hazards using invisibility, flight, protection spells, etc.
* Create allies through summoning, binding, or "unseen servant" type spells, etc.
* Trick NPC using a variety of illusions
* Heal debilitating conditions such as paralysis, disease, curses, death, etc.
* Travel with teleportation, planar travel, etc.
* Figure out impossible things with divinations of all sorts.
* Defend against a variety of magical threats that can only be defended using magic (e.g. using nondetection to defend against detect alignment)
* Create magical items

This is a sampling of the utility of spellcasters with which the mundane classes simply cannot compete.

I don't have a fix, but hopefully this gives you a better understanding of the scope of the problem.

[Cluedrew]

A couple of ideas:

• First aid, because people getting hurt is something that happens around the fighter.
• Survival skills, or at least encamping skills, depending on the exact background. An army fighter might not know how to forage for food, but they could probably make some defences for a camp.
• Social skills, there are few human beings who do not interact with other human beings. Plus they might have additional clout with the local guards and mercenaries.
• Odd jobs, this applies to all characters, but there is work for them that probably doesn't require the entire party.
• Gear repair, its their stuff, why wouldn't they know how to take care of it (although gear damage isn't really a factor in many systems).
• Background profession, whatever they did before they were an adventurer, if not one of the above.

[Eldan]

My test for a character class is usually this: make a list of 10 or so general categories of out of combat encounters/hazards and then think about how the character can contribute to those at low, medium and high level. Things like:

*Convince someone to help you
*Organize funds for an expedition
*Getting some sort of helper, cohort or similar to assist in your adventuring
*Getting your hands on a guarded object, without killing everyone involved
*Getting into a place unnoticed.
*Finding someone who doesn't want to be found.
*Get past an environmental obstacle
*Do research about a thing.

Now, many of these can be solved by just roleplaying. However, I do think a hero should be better at at least some of these than your average level 2 expert. Most casters sure are. Now, a character doesn't have to be good at all of those, but he should sure be good at some.

Then, well, I do think a character should have not just a role in the combat subgame on the battlemat, but a role in the wider game. Here's the challenge: describe your character's job, without mentioning his character class. A wizard could be an alchemist, an academic, a scribe, a teacher, a royal advisor. Similarly, you can describe your fighter as a guardsman, landed noble, mercenary leader, tribal warrior. Or at higher levels, a wandering demigod, king, mystic hero.

So, think of what they should be able to do for those roles. Then you know what you should have your fighter do, at the very least. If he's a guardsman, he should have some basic social and perception skills at low levels. And since the game goes to high levels, he should be able to deal with magical stealth and mind control, perhaps? As a landed noble, he should, even at low levels, know the history of the region, politics, his family line, plus courtly manners, maybe basic accounting, taxes, diplomacy, a few languages?

[Logosloki]

One of the over arching problems with D&D martial classes is the lack of shared metasystem. Spellcasters have spells, which can be used in combat, exploration and social situations. Psions have Psionics. Martials have a hodge-podge of various ideas, most of which are either mutually exclusive or lack in synergy. Technically feats in 3.5 but feats never had the same freedom of choice that spells and psionics had, or power, or exclusivity, or built in escape from choice measures.

[CharonsHelper]

Fighters don't need a fix...casters do. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: When WOTC copy-pasta'd AD&D stuff into their pre-existing D20 engine, they threw out a lot of the balance with the bathwater, especially where casters were concerned. Casters used to be glass cannons....They could do some damage, but they were pretty squishy. Now they are just cannons (or Tac-Nukes at higher levels). They tried to make up for it by giving fighters extra feats but you and I know just how well that worked.

While I actually think that 3.x (especially Pathfinder) balance is pretty decent until you get into double digits (a few issues earlier), this is pretty much the gist.

Frankly - people who choose to play a Fighter often don't WANT to do much outside of combat. There are plenty of options to choose from for martials who already have plenty of skills. Slayer is a great option if you want to do that.

[Logosloki]

One of the over arching problems with D&D martial classes is the lack of shared metasystem. Spellcasters have spells, which can be used in combat, exploration and social situations. Psions have Psionics. Martials have a hodge-podge of various ideas, most of which are either mutually exclusive or lack in synergy. Technically feats in 3.5 but feats never had the same freedom of choice that spells and psionics had, or power, or exclusivity, or built in escape from choice measures.

[Eldan]

While I actually think that 3.x (especially Pathfinder) balance is pretty decent until you get into double digits (a few issues earlier), this is pretty much the gist.

Frankly - people who choose to play a Fighter often don't WANT to do much outside of combat. There are plenty of options to choose from for martials who already have plenty of skills. Slayer is a great option if you want to do that.

I increasingly question why "Fighter" is even a class, to be honest. Fighter is the most bare bone description of a combat role, on the level of Spellcaster. It's up there with Fighting Man. From at least 3.0 onwards, and partially even in AD&D 2nd, there have been more classes than just the basic roles (Skillmonkey,

We've gone from Spellcaster to Wizard, Sorcerer, Binder, Psion, Archivist, Warlock, Truenamer. Why not the same for the Fighter?

I'd suggest losing the Fighter class entirely. Make a Knight, a Templar, a Paladin, a Barbarian, a Monk, a Duelist. Each of those suggests a role in the world. Fighter doesn't.

[Keltest]

I increasingly question why "Fighter" is even a class, to be honest. Fighter is the most bare bone description of a combat role, on the level of Spellcaster. It's up there with Fighting Man. From at least 3.0 onwards, and partially even in AD&D 2nd, there have been more classes than just the basic roles (Skillmonkey,

We've gone from Spellcaster to Wizard, Sorcerer, Binder, Psion, Archivist, Warlock, Truenamer. Why not the same for the Fighter?

I'd suggest losing the Fighter class entirely. Make a Knight, a Templar, a Paladin, a Barbarian, a Monk, a Duelist. Each of those suggests a role in the world. Fighter doesn't.

I think you are vastly overestimating the degrees of meaning many of those caster names have to people not already inherently familiar with the system and what it does.

If anything, I think several of the fighter-type classes need to be combined into one. Why is the barbarian a separate class from the fighter rather than a result of picking specific feats to enhance your offensive ability?

[LibraryOgre]

This is HIGHLY game-specific, to the point of being practically meaningless outside of that specific context.

[Telonius]

What Fighters should be able to do outside of combat:

- Provide basic, competent sentry duty (while not being quite as good at it as something like a Ranger)
- Have some chance of noticing that the "health and safety inspectors" are actually Rogues in disguise
- Find out what local figures might be in need of sellswords or bodyguards
- Serve as an instructor to the local nobility and/or criminal element in the use of weaponry

Beyond that, it depends on what sort of character you want. Fighter is kind of a blank slate, more than most classes. It's hard to put generally-useful non-combat abilities to an archetype as broad as "guy who's good at swinging weapons." (Not every fighter is going to be cozying up to the nobles, or be a sergeant in the army).

[Telok]

Re: What should a Fighter fix do out of combat?
Use skills.

No skills? Use a system that is more than combat rules.

[Eldan]

I think you are vastly overestimating the degrees of meaning many of those caster names have to people not already inherently familiar with the system and what it does.

If anything, I think several of the fighter-type classes need to be combined into one. Why is the barbarian a separate class from the fighter rather than a result of picking specific feats to enhance your offensive ability?

Certainly. I was speaking game-specific.

Okay, let me be more broad. In D&D, some archetypes (spellcaster) have a dozen variants that are mechanically different. However, there is still a sort of broad general class that tries to be an entire archetype (fighter).

What I'm saying is, it is bad for a game if some archetypes have a lot of diverse classes with interesting and detailed mechanics, while others have a broad "overview" class that tries to cover everything generally and in not much detail.

If you have a dozen spellcasters who are specific in both fluff and mechanics, your fighters should do the same.

[AceOfFools]

What I'm saying is, it is bad for a game if some archetypes have a lot of diverse classes with interesting and detailed mechanics, while others have a broad "overview" class that tries to cover everything generally and in not much detail.

I actually think that's not true. Having both simple streamlined characters that have to make fewer choices both in their build and in the round by round combat allows players with different preferences for complexity to play together.

Some of the people I play with don't have the patience (or time) to read through lists of hundreds of spells to pick what is optimal. This isn't a matter of intelligence, but of intetest. Even if they didn't have obligations they'd get bored by the task. These players choose to play fighters, rogues, etc. BECAUSE they enjoy the simpler play experience. Conversely, some of the people I play with adore the search, the customization and the optimization that comes with playing casters.

With a system with opt-in complexity, like 3.x DnD and derivatives, players with these diverse prefects can sit down and play together. It also gives simpler options for players new to either your game or the hobby. This grows your player base, and increases longevity of the gameline. I believe contributes to the popularity of DnD and derivatives.

This doesn't mean that the staggering power differential between simple and compex options found in those games is healthy for a game. It's not, as the number of threads like this one shows. But throwing out opt-in complexity as a concept does not automatically improve a game.

[Cosi]

I think you are vastly overestimating the degrees of meaning many of those caster names have to people not already inherently familiar with the system and what it does.

Those names specifically aren't all great, but you can clearly imagine Priests, Elementalists, Mindbenders, Illusionists, Necromancers, Warlocks, or any number of other archetypes where people can clearly identify what a magic class is doing from a name.

If anything, I think several of the fighter-type classes need to be combined into one. Why is the barbarian a separate class from the fighter rather than a result of picking specific feats to enhance your offensive ability?

Fighter is a bad place to do this, because as has been mentioned, it is vacuous to the point of meaninglessness. Nothing is different from the Fighter, because everything fights. Not the Barbarian, not the Paladin, not the Marshal. But all those classes are clearly different from each other, so it seems to me our solution ought to be "remove the Fighter".

[Lemmy]

To me, Fighters (who should be called Champions and be actually given level-appropriate abilities past 6th level) should at very least excel at:

- Physical skills (Acrobatics/Climb/Swim/whatever) and other feats of physical power and endurance.
- Identifying weaknesses of enemies/fortresses/armies/military organizations.
- Craft/identifying magical weapons and armor.
- Leadership.
- Intimidation.
- Knowledge of war and military history/organizations.

[Mendicant]

Set the "fighter" on fire and farm out its combat functions to rogues, rangers, marshals, barbarians and the like. A "fighting man" is conceptually barren. It represents few characters in fiction outside of extras and sidekicks, and those it does could still be represented by more interesting martial classes.

[Keltest]

Set the "fighter" on fire and farm out its combat functions to rogues, rangers, marshals, barbarians and the like. A "fighting man" is conceptually barren. It represents few characters in fiction outside of extras and sidekicks, and those it does could still be represented by more interesting martial classes.

So if somebody wants to play, say, a knight, what will you tell them to play? A paladin, maybe, but what if they don't want to cast spells? How about a norse Jarl? Are they going to be an illiterate barbarian who lives to throw themselves into battle and channels animal spirits? Perhaps a roman gladiator? And what would Achiles be? He's explicitly magic, and he still works best as a fighter, because the various warrior type legends simply don't distinguish themselves enough mechanically to be an entirely different class.

So borrow from Eldan for a minute, whats the difference between a Knight and a Templar, mechanically? or a Templar and a Paladin? How do you make them distinct enough to justify being their own class?

A wide variety of martial characters differ far more in the fluff than in the crunch.

[Rabidmuskrat]

Skillpoints! More skillpoints! The fighter should be a skill monkey on par with the rogue, the only exception being that whereas a rogue focuses on sneaky, lockpicky, etc-ey skills, a fighter should focus on swimming, jumping, running, etc'ing skills. But for some reason in DnD 3.5 fighters have a whole 2 base skill points per level. Seriously? That's the same as the wizard, who gets a metric ton of bonus ones due to Int and ends up dumping the stuff in knowledge because the bugger has cheap spells that make it so that he does not have to sully his hands doing all of the crap the fighter has to.

Have you ever heard of any character in any story that can be considered a 'fighter' being basically unable to do anything 'fightery'? You know, run and jump onto the back of the dragon... oh wait what's your acrobatics skill? A 3? Nope, sorry mate.

Meanwhile the wizard goes "Look, I know I got a -2 strength penalty, but I didn't know where to put all these 12 extra points I get per level, so I just shoved them in acrobatics for the laugh of it. Yeah. And I got a 10 in it now. Also, spell, so +20. Sorry fighter!"

Note that this is not the sole extent of what is required, I'm just adding to the list.

[Roderick_BR]

What Fighters should be able to do outside of combat:

- Provide basic, competent sentry duty (while not being quite as good at it as something like a Ranger)
- Have some chance of noticing that the "health and safety inspectors" are actually Rogues in disguise
- Find out what local figures might be in need of sellswords or bodyguards
- Serve as an instructor to the local nobility and/or criminal element in the use of weaponry

Beyond that, it depends on what sort of character you want. Fighter is kind of a blank slate, more than most classes. It's hard to put generally-useful non-combat abilities to an archetype as broad as "guy who's good at swinging weapons." (Not every fighter is going to be cozying up to the nobles, or be a sergeant in the army).

The more I think about it, having the fighter be a sort of "minor rogue", works well. Not as big skill points or list as a rogue, but a few skill points more and a few more class skills lets him catch up at least with the other martials, and not feel so useless.

As for the many spellcasters thing, I think wizard(and cleric) still defines a generalist spellcaster (arcane and divine, respectivelly) in the way that fighter defines generalist martials. Only All martials are screwed up rules-wise, and fighter gets the short shaft on that, while almost all spellcasters are full of utility and powerful abilities, and wizard is among the most broken class in the game.

[Karl Aegis]

Just tossing out some ideas:

Recover hit points for 3 party members whenever moving closer to an objective. Fighter recovers hit points equal to total amount of hit points party member recovers. Could extend to spells at higher levels.
Recover all hit points and use per day abilities for all party members when an objective is complete.
Gain bonus experience points and loot for percent of enemies not slain on way to completing objective.
Can bypass obstacles everyone else can bypass.

[Mendicant]

So if somebody wants to play, say, a knight, what will you tell them to play? A paladin, maybe, but what if they don't want to cast spells?

Since I'd have to fix the fighter in order cover that base as is, I'd probably put my effort into upgrading the marshal, samurai or, well, knight classes.

How about a norse Jarl? Are they going to be an illiterate barbarian who lives to throw themselves into battle and channels animal spirits?

A marshal, rogue, ranger, barbarian or paladin could all do this job, depending on what they want their jarl to look like.

Perhaps a roman gladiator?

A rogue, swashbuckler, Pathfinder's slayer, barbarian, ranger with some ACFs...

And what would Achiles be? He's explicitly magic, and he still works best as a fighter, because the various warrior type legends simply don't distinguish themselves enough mechanically to be an entirely different class.

Achilles is a barbarian with some kind of dip, archetype, ACF, or PrC that gives him some bardic abilities, and a custom magic tattoo that imparts really high DR and natural armor.

So borrow from Eldan for a minute, whats the difference between a Knight and a Templar, mechanically? or a Templar and a Paladin? How do you make them distinct enough to justify being their own class?

A wide variety of martial characters differ far more in the fluff than in the crunch.

Which is not really a problem for me, since I don't think every possible martial concept needs its own class. Depending on how you want your templar to play and feel, it could be built with quite a few different classes. If it's just a knight with a religious backstory and motivation, you could just play it as a knight.