Making the fighter a bit more versatile out of combat.

[Lollerabe]

Hey guys at my table we all think that the fighter class could use some love outside of combat.
We have added a few features to the base fighter class and I would love to hear some input from you guys.
Currently we only got me (a lvl 7 EK) playing a fighter, so the features 'stolen' from the other archetypes would need a replacement (if you have an idea on how to replace those features, do share).
Anyway we did the following:

At lvl 3 all fighters get remarkable athlet plus expertise in either athletics or acrobatics (players choice). The expertise dosent apply to shove/grapple attempts. The champion is currently scrapped at our table but would need a replacement feature.

At level 5 all fighters get 'show of force': You have advantage on all intimadation and persuasion checks against creatures that have seen you fight.

At lvl 7 all fighters get know your enemy (the battlemaster feature, so again we need a replacement).

The idea have been to add some versatility to the fighter class that helps them contribute to the exploration/social pillars.

Do you guys think it's too much? We tried giving straight up expertise in athletics/acrobatics but realized it was to much. I starting proning people and using grapple for the first time instead of attacking, and while it was awesome that those options became legit it was a tad to powerful - I almost couldn't fail an attempt at knocking people prone. Plus it was a straight combat buff, which wasent what we tried to solve.

We are still play testing but I love would feedback on the changes.

[Gastronomie]

I think giving Remarkable Athelete, advantage on initimidation/persuation against those who have seen you fight and Know Your Enemy are fine, and won't make Fighters broken either. I think they're good to go.

However, the idea of Athletics/Acrobatics that doesn't apply to shove/grapple attempts is just way too confusing and hard to keep track of to be considered a good idea. Everything should be more nice, simple, and to the point.

[assafelron]

Man, that's awsome. Very well designed.

[Lollerabe]

Thanks for the feedback Gastro, yeah I agree I prefer the easy to apply features as well. The expertise change came from my dm thinking the straight expertise buff was to big (and I agree) having it apply to checks such as climbing onto bigger creatures has been awesome though. But alas your point still stands.

[D.U.P.A.]

What kind of out of combat features? Battlemaster gets Know your enemy and Student of war, which are out of combat abilities, Eldritch knight has spells anyway, if the player wants have out of combat utility, he can pick such spells. Also Fighter gets most feats, which can significantly shape a character, you can pick for example, Actor, Healer, Inspiring leader, Keen mind, Ritual caster, Skilled, ...

[Sir cryosin]

Thank you D.U.P.A I was going to say the same. I don't see why the fighter gets all this "we need to fix the fighter so they can do thing out of combat.". People stop that the fighter is fine the paladins adilitys are all about combat why arnt ya'll trying to fix him. The fighter gets the most ASI if you want to contribute out side of combat pick up a feat like D.U.P.A said. Also taking one fighters ability and giving it to other fighters is just crapping on the fighter your taking the ability from.

[Gwendol]

To me it looks like most of the changes makes the fighter better at fighting, and some physical checks, which it is already quite good at based on the dependence on strength, dex and con. Feats and ASI's are what makes the fighter versatile, should the player want to, and offers a whole lot more flexibility in terms of the areas in which to branch out.

[CantigThimble]

A level 10 fighter can take ritual caster and healer to be an incredibly versatile character and still be on par with everyone else for ASIs. If your fighter doesn't have out of combat abilities it's because he chose only in combat abilities.

[LordVonDerp]

Thank you D.U.P.A I was going to say the same. I don't see why the fighter gets all this "we need to fix the fighter so they can do thing out of combat.". People stop that the fighter is fine the paladins adilitys are all about combat why arnt ya'll trying to fix him. The fighter gets the most ASI if you want to contribute out side of combat pick up a feat like D.U.P.A said. Also taking one fighters ability and giving it to other fighters is just crapping on the fighter your taking the ability from.

The paladin gets intimidation, persuasion, and deception, plus spells, and they have an easier time using Dex as a main stat.

[Lollerabe]

Thanks for the replies guys I appreciate it. I would love if you read my entire post before commenting though, I explicitly stated that remarkable athlet and know your enemy would be replaced on the champ/BM so no I'm not crapping on the other fighters.

Gwendol I don't see how the suggestions in question just makes the fighter better at fighting ? 'Know your enemy' is an out of combat feature that enables a fighter to offer valuable insight regarding NPCs and monsters alike. I think this feature is awesome and always thought it was a shame that only the battlemaster had acces to it, it adds depth to the class and seems fitting for any fighter IMO.

'Show of force' is a social interaction ability that lets the fighter shine in certain situations.
'The guy that just murdered 5 orcs by himself? Yeah maybe we should listen to what he has to say'
I thought it was a thematic feature and I'd like to believe some DMs would give a similar bonus if the PC fighter asked 'so they just saw me kill 5 orcs, dosent that make them more inclined to do X?"

Remarkable athlet - well yeah it's just bonus to some str/dex checks ,but I think the feature is so utterly lackluster yet fitting for all fighters that I'd rather replace it for the champion.

While it's true that a fighter gets more ASIs than other classes and can spend them on utility feats I think it's a bit sad that they have to give up very very appealing combat feats/score bumps to do so. A fighter that spends all his feats on combat related ASIs is still on par with other DPR focused classes.

While ritual caster is a neat feat and all I just dislike that a fighter have to pick that instead of GWM to feel valuable outside of combat.

Maybe the question in the OP should have been:

Do you think adding these features are to much? Would it break anything? Would it make the fighter class more fun to play? If they aren't breaking anything and they do make the class more fun, then why not add them?

Again I appreciate the feedback and would still also love suggestions for the replacement features.

[Maxilian]

While it's true that a fighter gets more ASIs than other classes and can spend them on utility feats I think it's a bit sad that they have to give up very very appealing combat feats/score bumps to do so. A fighter that spends all his feats on combat related ASIs is still on par with other DPR focused classes.

Ermm... i don't agree with this for many reasons, also the Fighter does not need to use all his ASIS to stay on par with other DPR focused classes, in general, i have always seen the Fighter as one of the most versatile classes because of the extra ASIs, so i don't think this is sad in any way.



While ritual caster is a neat feat and all I just dislike that a fighter have to pick that instead of GWM to feel valuable outside of combat.


You got enough feats to take both and also have a nice stat (not 20 but a nice stat)



Maybe the question in the OP should have been:

Do you think adding these features are to much? Would it break anything? Would it make the fighter class more fun to play? If they aren't breaking anything and they do make the class more fun, then why not add them?

Again I appreciate the feedback and would still also love suggestions for the replacement features.

Its not OP, it could be fun, but my problem with this is that this may give the fighter way more the ability to outshine other classes more often, in general, with Fighter it will happen every now and then in combat, but now even out of combat, also... your player is a EK, the EK gives him access to many out of combat spells.


Note: The Fighter have a lot of options, more than most classes, he only have combat options, because he only took those, and he can take other things without going down in DPR, so its a little unfair to give him something others can do but without a sacrifice

[Maxilian]

The paladin gets intimidation, persuasion, and deception, plus spells, and they have an easier time using Dex as a main stat.

The extra ASIs, make it quite easy to always have DEX in pretty good shape without losing feats (something the paladin cannot say) and as a EK, he also got spells (a little more limited)

[Sir cryosin]

The paladin gets intimidation, persuasion, and deception, plus spells, and they have an easier time using Dex as a main stat.

A fightet can all those skill and more and most of the palay spells are combat oriented. And what do you mean palay has it easyer time using dex as a main stat. The fighter has the 2 Dex based fighting style 2wf and archery. You see far more dex fighters then paladins.

[Sir cryosin]

All those abilitys relate to combat know your enemy is use to see what your going up agasnt whick makes is easyer to fight it. The shoe force you have to kill something just to use the ability. You can accomplish the same thing with a str intimidation roll.

[Lollerabe]

It gives advantage when they have seen you fight yes, that's hardly a combat ability - now you guys are stretching it a bit. Know your enemy grants you insight, which can be used in a thousand ways fx knowing when not to take the fight. Again both the abilities are out of combat and adds a bunch of out of combat options the fighter didn't have before. A strength based intimidation check is already there and does not capture the same feel at all, well at least not in my opinion.

It's like saying all the rangers ribbon features are related to combat because they make them better at tracking enemies - which the ranger then kills. Better at surviving the wilderness - so he can hunt and kill. If you dislike the suggestions that's fine, but it seems like a half hearted attempt to disregard them.

[Sir cryosin]

It gives advantage when they have seen you fight yes, that's hardly a combat ability - now you guys are stretching it a bit. Know your enemy grants you insight, which can be used in a thousand ways fx knowing when not to take the fight. Again both the abilities are out of combat and adds a bunch of out of combat options the fighter didn't have before. A strength based intimidation check is already there and does not capture the same feel at all, well at least not in my opinion.

It's like saying all the rangers ribbon features are related to combat because they make them better at tracking enemies - which the ranger then kills. Better at surviving the wilderness - so he can hunt and kill. If you dislike the suggestions that's fine, but it seems like a half hearted attempt to disregard them.

I understand your reason for know your enemy. I don't understand why you need show by force when you can just make a intimidation check by saying you saw have easly I took out them do x or it will be you. Are you just looking for a ability that give you advantage on intimidation checks?

[Sir cryosin]

Instead of show of force. Change it to intimidating presence or Warriors ferocity. You can add half of your proficiency bonue rounded down to any intimidation or persuasion checks. This way it feel like a natural ability a warrior would have but it don't pretain to combat at all and it don't step on rogue or bards expertise abilitys.

[Ashrym]

The paladin gets intimidation, persuasion, and deception, plus spells, and they have an easier time using Dex as a main stat.

Fighters get out of combat skills for the class too.

Skills: Choose two skills from Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Survival

Bonus ASI's can be used for out of combat options easily and still have the same feat options as a paladin, DEX fighters are easy to build, champions and battle masters specifically add out of combat options while eldritch knights carry spells, backgrounds can cover additional out of combat options and skills, and there are out of combat options available directly from equipment or mounts (including exotic mounts at higher levels).

There's no such thing in D&D as a class without out of combat options. Only players who ignore the options available or look at other classes with more options and consider less as equal to none.

[Sir cryosin]

I also think at thsee abilitys should not be added to a fighters chassis, because the fighter is a fighter it in the name of the class. Is a combat Focus class. If he is going to have out side of combat abilitys it need to come from his archtype or feats. What are you taking off the fighters chassis to replace these abilitys with because you can't just tack them on.

[Lollerabe]

Ah well we disagree on the premis then, I don't think a fighter should suck outside of combat just because the class name is fighter, nor because 'as is tradition'.

The fighter being able to pick a certain background dosent change that, it dosent change the fact that the fighter chasis is completely bland outside of roll play. Any class can have the outlander background AND a class that has a mix of combat and exploration / social interaction features.

I dont intend to remove anything in exchange. Do me the favor and read my OP, it's very clear that I intended to add these features 'free of charge' if you will.

[Maxilian]

Ah well we disagree on the premis then, I don't think a fighter should suck outside of combat just because the class name is fighter, nor because 'as is tradition'.

Noone is saying that.

Note: Combat focus =/= suck out of combat


The fighter being able to pick a certain background dosent change that, it dosent change the fact that the fighter chasis is completely bland outside of roll play. Any class can have the outlander background AND a class that has a mix of combat and exploration / social interaction features.


With the extra feats (Something that ONLY fighters get) they can fill that void



I dont intend to remove anything in exchange. Do me the favor and read my OP, it's very clear that I intended to add these features 'free of charge' if you will.

We understand that, the problem is that you're giving the Fighter the ability to overshadow others, as you may have noticed with other classes, they can't do the DPR of a Fighter, nor can do as many things as they can in combat, so its a little bit unfair to give to Fighter some extra utilities, that is basically giving the power of the Fighter to step on other people shoes.

Note: This have nothing to do with the ability of things they can do with RP, in the end, the face of the party i'm DMing for is a Fighter

[Waazraath]

No, I don't think it's too much per se; it are nice features, but not too powerful. It's a quite situational expertise in 2 skills; an expertise in another, but not for the imo most important part of the skill; and a feature that is fun in the intel gathering, but not game breaking. So what you add is decent, but not that much.

Based on what I've seen so far, I don't think it's nessecary though; the figher seems quite ok out of combat to me. EK without question, plenty of spells that are good ooc. And I agree with most other posters that the ASI's give the fighter the flexibility to customize for many out of combat roles, if needed. After all, a fighter only need a high combat strength, a decent (though not per se maxed out) constitution, and that's it. 3 ASI's and you're there, plenty of room left for both combat feats AND ritual caster, magic initiate, skilled, or whatever you want to focus on.

But if you think it's neccesary, go for it, this is a fine way to do it imo.

[Ashrym]

The fighter being able to pick a certain background dosent change that, it dosent change the fact that the fighter chasis is completely bland outside of roll play. Any class can have the outlander background AND a class that has a mix of combat and exploration / social interaction features.

It's true any class can have those options. That doesn't mean a fighter doesn't have those options or that they don't exist for the fighter just because a ranger can also take them. The fighter still has those same out of combat options.

What it means is the fighter's out of combat options are less exclusive than some of the other classes, not that they don't exist. There's a difference there so we do disagree on the premise. My fighters always have out of combat options and solid in combat options to go with them.

You asked us, "Do you guys think it's too much?" and after seeing the responses came back with, "I dont intend to remove anything in exchange. Do me the favor and read my OP, it's very clear that I intended to add these features 'free of charge' if you will."

The answer is, "yes, it's too much" because it's a free upgrade on a good class already but the additional context is not that there is excessive power from the changes and more that it's adding too much that has no real reason. It's moving abilities around from the subclasses to the base class so there's no new abilities gained in that process while some distinction in the subclasses is lot until further changes are coming to replace them. The skill benefits listed are already available via aid another or similar in function to "skills with different abilities" on page 175 of the PHB. Seeing someone fight and applying that information to an intimidation check would be why the ability score used for the fight might be appropriate to an intimidation check, for example. I'm not sure why fighting is being rationalized for persuasion.

The only thing a fighter needs to do to have out of combat abilities is use the one's available to fighters already, including spending an feat there or spending ASI's on ability scores that impact a lot of skills in the event feats are banned. If a person wants expertise and bonus skills it's easily available on a 1 level rogue splash. This is a case of reinventing the wheel by adding cosmetic changes instead of actual functionality changes.

It's doubtful it would hurt anything, but it seems a lot like change for the sake of change in light of the end goal and current options available to fighters.

Additionally, how does adding another bonus to an ability the fighter can already use make it less bland? The actual action hasn't changed. It's a fighter using intimidation one way and a fighter using intimidation again with the changes. The changes don't actually correct the premise because the actions available to the fighter haven't actually changed in that regard. Out of combat skills aren't bland because social skills are filled with role play and commentary. Exploration skills haven't been altered by your suggestions but fighters tend to be good at those based on physical ability scores and normally use athletics or acrobatics already.

Arguing appeal to tradition when you stated, "nor because as is tradition," is a strawman. No one stated that fighters should be boring because they've always been boring (appeal to tradition). The argument was that fighters aren't boring or suck, which I believe is true based on my experience. ;-)

[Lollerabe]

Sorry saying suck was hyperbole - I apologize. Most martials can do more in combat than the fighter by the way. Save for the BM, fighters are very much registricted to the attack action, a huge part of their power even relies on that - extra attack 1+. Yeah feats can add some depth to in combat gameplay, but let's not act as though fighters got a plethora of options when combat finally do roll in.
Hell if combat menuvers (without the extra damage perhaps) were part of the base chasis I'd be thrilled as well - at least they open up for interresting ways to fight, but I digress.

I very much agree that the fighter shouldn't be as good as the rogue / bard when it comes to non combat, nor do I think that these feature will make them.

Stepping on their toes? Hmm a bit I guess? But these changes are at best minor, except for the expertise part which I admit was going overboard (play testing tends to work that way at my table, we start big and narrow in).

And while this may be a lackluster argument to some - fighters don't get all that many extra feats, many tables rarely play beyond lvl 11+ at level 8 they are one feat ahead. I'm not trying to discredit that more feats = more options. I just feel that the amount of versatility being available through feats is getting blown a bit out of proportion here.

The fact that I said suck dosent change my point, we do seem to disagree on the premis (which is fine) I think the fighters lack of non combat abilities are a bad thing, bad design even and that annoys me. I get that you cant be the best at everything, and in 5e you trade power in one area for power in another - hence why these changes are relatively small yet thematic and fun for the player (IMO).

Again I do appreciate you guys taking a look and posting your responses.

[Lollerabe]

Ashrym I'm not saying the outlander background dosent give a fighter options just because the ranger can take it as well, I'm saying that said background has nothing to do with the class. That's the background which again is independent from the class chasis.

The outlander background dosent give the fighter class more options, they are entirely seprable when discussing the class chasis.

I assume you aren't being condescending so for the sake of it: I never said a PC playing a fighter has no options to take outside of combat, of course they do its dnd pnp we are playing after all. I'm saying those options have precious little to do with the actual class, which is what I'm trying to adress. A wizard can also pick X background plus have a plethora of options available to them both in and out of combat granted by their class. I'm not going mute whenever we aren't killing stuff while playing my fighter, I just felt frustrated by the lack of options granted through my class.

Adding advantage does make it less 'bland' because it ensures I have a higher succes rate, it makes me especially good at this. I think expertise makes things less bland as well, and that's just 'add a higher number' yet it makes the rogue/bard able to succeed where others wouldn't, which again is fun. You are of course welcome to disagree.

If it's doubtful it would hurt anything then I have a hard time seeing the problem. If it adds new options, plus make the gameplay more fun for players and dosent hurt the inter balance of classes - then why not?
I understand the 'well it's just a free buff and they don't need it' concept but I feel the other way. If it's a free buff that dosent break nor hurt then why not add it ?
Maybe I'm just reluctant to see it from your perspective since it's my idea we are discussing, I won't rule that out.

I'm sorry for the straw man, I jumped the gun on the tradition thing - that was uncalled for and I apologize.

Edit: And out of honest curiosity what are all these non combat/utility spells that the EK have available ? Maybe I've gotten railroaded by my playstyle but I haven't seen a lot so far.

[Mikey P]

You can't just add features without removing anything and have the fighter remain balanced. I think it is very well balanced against the other classes, so if you want to add stuff to fighter, be sure to add stuff to all the other classes too.

Also, seems like the majority of your "non combat" abilities seem to be.... combat abilities.

[Lollerabe]

Well if I believe they aren't balanced in that department I can, I can also let sorcerers regain some sorcery points on short rests without buffing every other class.

Again the premis would have to be that the fighter is perfectly balanced as is and therefore any free buff would break the class, a premis I clearly don't agree with.
As I said before I appreciate all the input and I'm starting to see that what I considered a problem with the fighter class obviously ain't seen as a problem by most of you, and that's perfectly fine, I'll keep that in mind while play testing or before I add anything else.

Again - how are a majority of those abilities combat abilities? 2/3 is directly not tied to combat, while remarkable athlet could be to a lesser degree I guess.

Is all the Rangers ribbon features combat features because they all make the ranger better at stalking,tracking,navigating and surving which helps the ranger hunt down his prey?

Know your enemy is not a combat feature, it's a feature that gives you Intel outside of combat.
Show of force gives a boon in social interaction outside of combat.
Remarkable athlet well that's a toss up I can't say when that comes up.
Of course I'm gonna add ribbon features that thematicly fits a warrior, they are somehow tied to his knowledge of combat or his sheer excellence in combat/physical exercise.
I'm not gonna add a ribbon that allows the fighter to talk to animals or find the best carpet prices because that dosent make any sense.

[Ruslan]

At lvl 7 all fighters get know your enemy (the battlemaster feature, so again we need a replacement).

To avoid stepping on the Battlemaster's toes, how about "You have Advantage on Insight and Deception checks against creatures whom you have seen fight."

Mirrors the level 5 feature nicely.

[Ashrym]

Ashrym I'm not saying the outlander background dosent give a fighter options just because the ranger can take it as well, I'm saying that said background has nothing to do with the class. That's the background which again is independent from the class chasis.

But it's not independent of the character. We build characters, not classes. The class is just the main chassis as you point out while the rest modifies the character, including taking a background so that there's more to the character than just the chassis. Feats do the same thing and bonus ASI's are a part of the chassis allowing for things like dungeon delver, lucky, skilled, ritual caster, observant, actor, or magic initiate as examples that expand utility instead of combat.

Adding non-combat is as easy as spending a feat or bonus feat on options like those mentioned above as part of the fighter chassis. It's all about diversifying the character through the available options instead of seeing those options as somehow restricted just because the class says fighter.


The outlander background dosent give the fighter class more options, they are entirely seprable when discussing the class chasis.

Yes, it is not part of the fighter class. It does give the fighter options, regardless, because it's part of the character. If the character sheet says fighter and the background says outlander that character has those abilities. The fact the class says fighter doesn't change that or make those abilities any less relevant than any other character who might use the same abilities.

Keeping that in mind, consider the rogue. A rogue is considered to have such options because of extra skills, expertise, and reliable talent. A lot of people look at what those can do and seem to forget that they don't apply to every skill because a) the rogue doesn't have every skill, b) the rogue cannot apply expertise to every skill he or she does possess, c) reliable talent is awesome but it only protects against low rolls and doesn't improve upper limits, and d) the ability score is just as important as the proficiency bonus.

Rogues make a lot of checks without proficiency or expertise because it can only be applied to specialization, which is typically thieves' tools, stealth, perception, and investigation although that last one differs from time to time. When a rogue has 6 skills compared to a fighter's 4 skills that means they are on equal footing for most ability checks. If they are built differently, the fighter is likely to be superior in athletics (useful for combat and for exploration) as an out of combat ability and survival is not on the rogue's skill list like it is the fighter's so a rogue is restricted in backgrounds to match out of combat abilities available to the fighter. The rogue can invest in STR for athletics or take expertise in it to avoid needing STR (and still get a similar check to a STR fighter) or even invest for higher numbers but the trade off is losing those bonuses to something else. Typically, the rogue will be better in a few skills, the fighter will be better in a few skills although not as many as the rogue, and they will be similar in a lot of skills. There isn't a big gap that needs change to cover.


I assume you aren't being condescending so for the sake of it

Interestingly, I had assumed I wasn't being condescending at all, let alone for the sake of it. ;-)

There's nothing meant to be condescending. Just clear and I tend to over explain at times. The problem is that it's in text so no voice tone or inflection, no facial indicators, no body language, etc. Condescension is something being read in and all I can recommend is to try rereading it with a different tone in your head. My apologies if it does come across in a tone other than intended but that happens on the internet at times.


I never said a PC playing a fighter has no options to take outside of combat, of course they do its dnd pnp we are playing after all. I'm saying those options have precious little to do with the actual class, which is what I'm trying to adress. A wizard can also pick X background plus have a plethora of options available to them both in and out of combat granted by their class. I'm not going mute whenever we aren't killing stuff while playing my fighter, I just felt frustrated by the lack of options granted through my class.

That's begging the question of why the class needs options when the character being played has options or why we are acknowledging a PC playing a fighter has options but there is an issue with those options. It also begs the question on how exactly a wizard has so many options when the class is restricted by action economy, spell slots, spells prepared, spells in the spell book, and utility spells that use the same d20 mechanic that skills use anyway.

There's generally a mundane approach to most of what a wizard does but there are drawbacks to playing a wizard. Lower hit points, lower hit die, lower AC, lower damage, worse class based healing, and poor feat selection for combat benefits off the top of my head. A person might not like passive benefits but they are benefits none-the-less. That would lead me to believe fighter isn't the right class for the player if the player wants more active decision points. Playing a paladin, barbarian, ranger, or monk can be very similar to the fighter but they do generally include more decision points.

I think I might be missing how you see your changes better comparing the fighter to wizard aside from begging the question that there is a gap in the first place. A wizard doesn't have CHA as a stat focus and doesn't have any skills on the class list to help with social checks or exploration. They have poor rolls. Casting charm person does nothing more than grant advantage on the check and the best feature of the spell is an combat option in preventing attacks because the rules allow for using social checks with advantage having a partner who can use the aid another action for that same advantage without any of the opportunity cost or resource management. Just having proficiency in intimidation (fighter skill when wizards don't have social skills) would work because a charmed person knows what happened after the fact and isn't likely to be receptive moving forward regarding a person who charmed him or her.


Adding advantage does make it less 'bland' because it ensures I have a higher succes rate, it makes me especially good at this. I think expertise makes things less bland as well, and that's just 'add a higher number' yet it makes the rogue/bard able to succeed where others wouldn't, which again is fun. You are of course welcome to disagree.

Losing checks creates tension that also make the game fun. Often the bonus is just overkill because opposed checks and DC's aren't normally high. That presumption requires the rogue or bard to have taken proficiency in the skill, and having taken expertise in the skill or some combination thereof; at least the bard likely has a CHA bonus. The fighter will be better at other non-combat skills even with the rogue or bard having a focus in persuasion because that's something else they did not specialize in as a trade off.


If it's doubtful it would hurt anything then I have a hard time seeing the problem. If it adds new options, plus make the gameplay more fun for players and dosent hurt the inter balance of classes - then why not?

If you want to go for it then go for it. It's not like what you do at your table will impact the rest of us. You are the one who asked us for feedback. Why would you ask for a discussion and then not discuss? My response is that it's unnecessary and does what already exists so that's what we appear to be discussing.


I understand the 'well it's just a free buff and they don't need it' concept but I feel the other way. If it's a free buff that dosent break nor hurt then why not add it ?
Maybe I'm just reluctant to see it from your perspective since it's my idea we are discussing, I won't rule that out.

See my response above. I'm just sharing what I find in my experience.

5e fighters are more appealing to me than I've seen in any other edition before it. One of the reasons for that is because the basic template design allows for me to tweak my idea of a fun character out of it by using a modular approach with the class as a base chassis followed by background and feat selection. Champion is even my favorite subclass because I like adding a second fighting style and I use remarkable athlete to avoid skills I'm going to be good at with a high ability modifier anyway. If I'm making a high DEX or high STR fighter I don't bother with athletics or acrobatics (I would still take stealth, however) because I know I'm getting a decent bonus regardless and take proficiency in skills that don't have the high ability score. That gives me a decent to good bonus in a lot of skills instead of a higher bonus in only a few skills and opens up higher success in more skills more often. Your changes propose stricter focus so would not be as commonplace as my wider skill variety using what already exists. When the baseline is low like 5e uses a character is better off with a broader range than a higher roll on specific abilities.

I'm currently playing a bard again but my previous fighter was human variant (I go for the bonus feat most of the time with the occasional half-elf and less often dwarf as my typical races). He was DEX based with the outlander background as one of my favorite backgrounds. That added athletics (which is good because STR wasn't a focus) and survival. Both of those are out of combat skills used for the exploration pillar. The fighter skills were intimidation (my social skill) and animal handling (I use mounts and it's rarely in competition with other characters). My bonus for being human was nature and I spent the bonus feat on skilled for stealth, perception, and investigation.

Remarkable athlete didn't give me much of a jump bonus (STR was 12 iirc; going by memory atm) like it had on a previous champion who was STR based but it did give me +8 sleight of hand and acrobatics with no proficiency, he had +7 athletics, +11 stealth, +6 in nature and investigation (+11 passive investigation), +8 in animal handling, +8 in perception (+13 passive perception), +8 in survival, +6 in intimidation. He did skip over sharpshooter for observant in the process and had resilient WIS. Ending stats were STR 12, DEX 20, CON 20, INT 10, WIS 14, CHA 10; fighting styles were duelist and defense to go for AC with high survivor healing. He also had +8 CON checks, not that those came up much. He carried around a crowbar for advantage on strength checks to break open locks and doors, and had a +4 bonus on the checks because they were strength checks. He rode a trained griffon as a mount. He could lip read from stealth for good measure.

The point is that he had a high enough bonus in many skills that I was confident in using those skills regularly. It doesn't take the highest bonuses or highest chance of success to use those abilities. He was good for out of combat exploration, had some social pillar ability, and was solid on defensive ability going sword and board plus survivor and having added WIS save, natural DEX save, and fantastic CON save. CON save can also be important for exploration and indomitable applies to preventing a fail on those CON saves. Persevering extreme weather unprotected or forced marching are examples of exploration where those abilities can come into play.

As mentioned earlier, I can already add advantage to a lot of those just by using a partner for aid another and advantage on the checks.

The other thing worth pointing out is that action surge doesn't need to be used on attacks just because it can be. It most likely would be but action surge can be spent on taking skill actions in sequence. That's a bit niche but it looks good on 2 acrobatics checks, 2 athletics checks, 2 sleight of hand checks, or persuading / intimidating 2 different groups on the same turn to get them fighting each other or standing down from conflict and ending a war. It's also possible to break down a complex high DC into 2 actions on one turn. Why try a single 20 or 25 DC if the DM allows a 10 and a 15 based on how the player describes his or her actions and uses his or her resources?

I also use my environment. I'm the type of player who kicks over braziers, swings across chandeliers, flips over tables for cover, knocks over book cases or tries to collapse ceilings for area damage, uses dead bodies for cover, or will tackle a wizard out through an window and into the moat where I can hold my breath longer than he can and where he's unlikely to be capable of casting spells. I'll pay for the lifestyle just for the contacts I can make (better friends make for better favors and resources) and I'll broker favors to be called in later. Fighters do all those things just fine. Some of them are things fighters are good at because they are based on physical attributes.

As a side note, my current bard is also nature oriented but only 7th level right now.


Edit: And out of honest curiosity what are all these non combat/utility spells that the EK have available ? Maybe I've gotten railroaded by my playstyle but I haven't seen a lot so far.

Unlike rangers and paladins, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters get cantrips. The cantrips aren't restricted by school so friends or minor illusion are options for the EK, for example. The EK also has the option for schools outside of evocation and abjuration at levels 3, 8, 14, and 20 so things like disguise self, charm person, unseen servant, alter self, or suggestion are available fairly early. I think skills and equipment etc generally cover what a lot of spells can do based on my experience, but alter self is pretty good as an example of something typically beyond fighters with aquatic adaptation.

[Talionis]

I'd say it's not necessary. Fighter is a great chassis and has extra ASI to allow a lot more customization.

If you must do something, here is my advice.

Don't call it expertise if it doesn't do what Expertise does. Expertise is also a big boost so you might be okay just a plus two benefit. If the benefits are smaller you might feel more ease just letting it be Athletics.

I always worry about adding and subtracting as much as you are doing quickly you'll be completely redesigning archetypes under Fighter.

I'd look at adding things like Theives Cant. Not exactly that obviously but things that have little mechanical benefit. Maybe some knowledge of architecture because they help build forts and use siege equipment. It's interesting to try to think about ways a fighter might use intelligence, since Intelligence might be a casting stat.

Another place a Fighter might be good out of combat might be like an extra plus one when someone uses the help mechanic because the Fighters are trained in teamwork.

But I really don't think it's necessary.

[Sir cryosin]

Ok the way people are see thsee ability are this. Know your any let you know two thing about a creature and the things are there
Str score
Dex score
Con score
Armore class
Current hit points
Total class lv ( if any)
Fighter class level (if any)
Based off the information you can get out of that is to help you in combat which makes it a combat ability even if it out of combat use. A combat ability is a ability that help you gain anything for combat it don't have to be something that used in combat.

Now on to show of force. How are you going to use it if you are not in combat or just finishing combat. The hole premise of this ability it to intimidate or persuade enemy's by showing your martial prowess. Which can be accomplish with out COMBAT.

Your class is not the character it's the characters set of skills for combat. The bard only has two abilitys that are considered noncombat abilitys and they are expertise and peerless skill and you can't really count expertise because it can be used for Athletics acrobatics stealth ect... Now class's are for combat there are few in between complete on combat abilitys. Out of combat is what he have back grounds, and skills for. Every class is versatile in and out of combat. So you used the rangers so called ridden abilitys out in a few of your posts and they arn't anything special that any class can accomplish with out rolling a skill check or learning a language. It just makes them better at it. Yes you going to say that my point. But this is a game with parameters and you can't make a hero jack of trades master of them all. A fight is to ecxal at one thing and that using weapon to dominate the battle field. And that what they do well. If your playing a fighter that excel's in and outside of combat. Your not letting the player that build his character that dominate social, exploration, ect.. I apologize if this next statement is untrue but. It sounds like you just want to add bounes to skills to make sure you succeed in your rolls. And that my friend is the worst mind set to have when homebreweing. There is nothing wrong with a fighter outside of combat. If you want to do something do tell your DM I do x DM tells you to roll for x and see what happens. For abilitys like know your enemy it better to just spend time watching then and following them and pressing your DM for any and all little details that your character my see or figure out while watching them. That's why I said earlyer that if you want a fighter with out side of combat abilitys create a new archtype with abilitys. A fighters chassis is perfect for a fightet weather it's a eldritch knight, champion, battlemaster, berrnetta (aka purple dragon knight). My advice is just try things with out trying to design a base class. Yes a fighter is a fighter, a rogue is a rogue, a wizard is a wizard, a cleric is a cleric the point is a class fits into a spot that they need to fill begfor adventuring into a different spot aka Thay why we have archtypes. So my answer to your op is no these abilitys are just buffs where there should be. And there is nothing wrong with a fighter outside of cambat.

[Gwendol]

Gwendol I don't see how the suggestions in question just makes the fighter better at fighting ? 'Know your enemy' is an out of combat feature that enables a fighter to offer valuable insight regarding NPCs and monsters alike. I think this feature is awesome and always thought it was a shame that only the battlemaster had acces to it, it adds depth to the class and seems fitting for any fighter IMO.

'Show of force' is a social interaction ability that lets the fighter shine in certain situations.
'The guy that just murdered 5 orcs by himself? Yeah maybe we should listen to what he has to say'
I thought it was a thematic feature and I'd like to believe some DMs would give a similar bonus if the PC fighter asked 'so they just saw me kill 5 orcs, dosent that make them more inclined to do X?"

Remarkable athlet - well yeah it's just bonus to some str/dex checks ,but I think the feature is so utterly lackluster yet fitting for all fighters that I'd rather replace it for the champion.

While it's true that a fighter gets more ASIs than other classes and can spend them on utility feats I think it's a bit sad that they have to give up very very appealing combat feats/score bumps to do so. A fighter that spends all his feats on combat related ASIs is still on par with other DPR focused classes.



The insight given by "know your enemy" is combat related, so the ability is designed to give the fighter an edge in combat or contests.

A fighter does not have to spend all his ASI's on physical score improvements to be on par wrt DPR! You need to provide some examples of this to support such a statement.

[Lollerabe]

At this point I feel like we are going in circles a bit, either I'm not making myself clear or we simply disagree on what I consider a basic thing.

If class X (without backgrounds) has 7 different features outside of combat and background X provides 2 then class X now has 9 with that background.

If the fighter class has 2 different features outside of combat and uses the same background then the fighter now has 4 non combat features - I'm not saying the background dosent add features (why would I ? That's a fact) I'm saying the background dosent change the base chassis' mechanics.

I can't see how this can be disputed.

Again just because these features are somehow related to combat does not make them combat features, gaining Intel through know your enemy can be used in multiple different ways, it might very well be used to determine how to best beat said enemy and that's fine. It then adds a element of expertise to the fighter that wasent there and might be very valuable for the party. It could also be used to determine what npcs to steer clear off, which lord to support in a civil war etc.

Of course I can just follow the NPC around and try to get my information based of that, but again so can any class/background combination. If the argument for not adding ribbon features becomes 'well you can try to do X and ask your DM what happens anyway' then I'm at a loss.

There's a difference between fluff and crunch, we can always try to do whatever we want in tabletop dnd, but mechanical crunch helps the players succeed in certain areas or become unique, that's why they are there.

I made the ranger example because it seems like the whole 'they are combat features' argument stops any logical conversation. Yes the features are thematicly based on combat or Intel regarding fighting, that dosent mean that the features can only be used to indulge in more murder.
Just like all the Rangers features are thematicly based on stalking/hunting/survival - that however dosent mean that the Rangers features can only be used for stalking and eventually killing. The features adds options for the players and how the players use those options varies greatly.

Show of force could be used in a thousand different ways, to archive a thousand different things. The fact that it's derived from roll play dosent mean it just creates more roll play.

Gwendol I never said a fighter had to spend all his feats on combat feats to be on par with other classes, I said even if he did he's not blowing other classes out of the water in DPR.

The point with that was to show that all this versatility that additional feats bring to the table is being blown out of proportions. The base fighter class isn't so much ahead in DPR pre feats that he can spend his ASIS' on non combat feats and still remain the best 'fighting man' in the party.
You can take a look at Kryxs DPR of classes if you want.

Ashrym I never intended not to discuss my suggestions, as my postcount in the thread hopefully shows.

I have very much enjoyed reading all the responses although I blatantly disagree with a lot of them, as I said in a previous post it's clear that I seem to think the fighter class has some issues outside of combat whereas many of you don't agree. That's perfectly fine, in conclusion the main thing I can take away from this is not that the suggested features are wrong or unfun - it's simply that most of you think they are unneeded. That I can understand although I don't agree.

Obviously things differ from table to table and it's important to cater to the table I play at. At our table the champion was entirely scrapped because every single player found it lackluster and boring - at othe tables people enjoy it and think it's a well designed, well rounded class.

I'll try to avoid power creeping when adding features, I made a suggestion way back for a change of the EK and had a long discussion with Tanarii regarding it, it turns out the most of my changes were unneeded once I started playing the actual game and I ended up removing most of them.
So while I may come across as hardheaded regarding these suggested changes, all this input helps me realize what I should be on the lookout for.

So again thanks for taking the time to adress and discuss this with me guys, I appreciate it.

[djreynolds]

This an interesting thread, part of the reason I see is skills are tied to ability scores. And a fighter isn't taking much in terms of int/wis/chr since they will only be tied to saves and skills and no other powers such as spells or ward or auras.

But a true strength of the fighter, is its ease to multiclass, though not a solution. A level of rogue helps a lot, with expertise.

Another aspect of roleplaying, what NPC or villager is not going to be distrusting or scared of a barbarian? Is the paladin someone they want to talk to? Talking to a paladin is like me talking to a cop, "they know I'm full of it." A fighter might be more accessible than extreme paladins and ferocious barbarians.

Its not the fault of the fighter, its that there is no obvious benefit to having a high charisma for fighter other than saves which he is not proficient in and skills.

How about, offering an "adventurer's feat" that allows any player to combine his highest ability modifier to the ability check being used, and then divide them?

A fighter could use his strength say +5 and charisma -1, for +4/2 for +2 on his charisma checks. It costs a feat, call it the adventurers feat. And it might make taking social skills a better investment.

For me, I always grab resilient wisdom for a fighter and take perception and insight as skills, I see that my fighter has pulled a lot of gate guard and can smell the B*** S*** the smuggler is trying to sell. But the cleric who has had many hours sitting in the confessional is still probably better at it.

And it my be draonic, but often if my players I'm DMing do not have proficiency in a skill, they may roll at disadvantage. Halfings, I'm told, love it because they get disadvantage with great swords and longbows. Same as wizards swinging around martial weapons.

[Gwendol]

The point of the class is the versatility. The design is such that the player can choose to specialize, to be a switch-hitter, to branch out, multi-class, etc, without losing too much staying power. The choice to add out of combat versatility is already there in the form of backgrounds, feats, and to a lesser extent ASI's. Straight fighter is an efficient combatant without feats: the two fighting styles and extra attacks will see to that (and action surge of course).

[LordVonDerp]

The extra ASIs, make it quite easy to always have DEX in pretty good shape without losing feats (something the paladin cannot say) and as a EK, he also got spells (a little more limited)
Hmm? Of course a fighter can have good dex, why wouldn't he?
The Paladin, however, is far less dependent on weapon damage die, making Dex far more useful. Also, while the EK does have spells, they're all combat spells.

[SharkForce]

well, nobody can say those of us who think fighters are excessively weak outside of combat are the only ones who derail threads with our opinions now :P

anyways, i don't see much point in trying to convince people that fighters lack options. whether it's true or not, they seem to be happy with the fighter as it is in the books, and there's definitely no value in convincing them that they're not happy with the number of options they have. so we might as well just let them be happy with what they have.

on the other hand, the inverse is equally true. even if you think fighters are perfectly fine, the OP (and his/her group) are not happy with the fighter as it currently stands, and there isn't any particular reason to try and persuade them that they are actually secretly deep down perfectly satisfied with it. it's fine to point out the options that the fighter does have, but if the OP is aware of those options and is still not happy, the simple fact is that they still aren't happy, and trying to insist that they are perfectly content with it is going to change that.

@ OP: two ideas i've considered:

1) as the fighter gains levels, they start counting as two or more people for the purpose of how much work can get done in physical tasks. if you're building a dam to block a river, or assembling a trebuchet, a high level fighter can get as much work done as ten regular workers. this is a perfectly non-magical sounding ability that still lets the fighter accomplish some pretty impressive things. if you want to be a bit generous, you can even have this apply to learning new proficiencies that are primarily based on physical attributes (and this also gives them *something* to sink their gold into if they don't want to throw it into a money pit --- err, i mean business or stronghold).

2) allow them to count as larger or smaller than they really are (i would extend this slightly to other martial classes - rogues can count themselves as smaller only, barbarians larger only, for example). this does have some definite combat utility however; being larger or smaller can allow them to pass through enemy spaces if the difference is large enough. it can allow them to grapple larger than usual creatures, and makes them immune to similar abilities from other creatures. it allows them to fit into smaller spaces without squeezing, and it lets them block off a larger chunk of the battle map when they're trying to keep enemies from reaching the squishies. it would also mean that they could use unusually large weapons, which might be a bit of a problem. but it also means that at higher levels, they can lift as much weight as a horse or even as much as a giant, squeeze through cracks that would otherwise be impossible to fit into, and a few other weird corner cases (it would, for example, allow them to ride smaller than usual creatures). and as an added plus, a lot of the combat stuff it allows is stuff they could do normally, it just lets them do it to creatures that were previously too big.

personally, i would try to keep any major additions to the later levels though. not that these abilities are inherently broken at low levels or anything, but rather because at levels 1-10, i really do feel like the fighter has a lot to look forward to. other classes don't have much in the way of non-combat abilities, except for the casters, and they're still working on building enough resources to be able to afford to spend much on non-combat stuff without cutting into their combat power too much. then you hit those later levels and it's suddenly "oh by the way, i'm going to make that hostile tribe of hill giants my hirelings for the day and have them set up an avalanche trap for me", or "i spend the next week building a castle with wall of stone and furnishing it with fabricate".

[Talionis]

I do think there is a trope of the Fighter or Barbarian playing Bad Cop and getting information out of people. I'm not sure it wouldn't be better to just Homebrew a feat. Its easier for a Fighter to take a Feat than any other class. I really worry about class balance. I'm a firm believer that an impartial Wizards Development Team is better at balance than any one play group. That being said, please have fun and do what you think is fun for your playgroup.

I don't think the Fighter is at all gimped or unfun in Fifth Edition. I think Fighter is actually one of the more important characters even into fairly high level play.

One concern I do have is that you don't want a Fighter to be taking the place of Bards and other face characters who maybe more weak in combat than your Fighter. Also you may want to think about future party balance not just this particular party.

Another thing to keep in mind is the Big Dumb Fighter Trope and Big Dumb Barbarian Trope. While it might not be fair to any particular character, if you've dumped Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma and then you are complaining that you need a boost in social situations, I have little sympathy for you.

My real advice is to homebrew a feat that does what you want and let your Fighter take it as a test. Fighter has flexibility in more ASI's than any other class.

As a very final thought, you might ask your DM to give some bonuses to intimidation when someone knows how dangerous you can be. That maybe more of a party bonus than an individual player bonus, but it makes sense and when I've DM'd I've given all sorts of what I thought were real situation bonuses to certain roles simply from the player's role play and the actual situation. SO you may need not feat, feature, or real change to get exactly what you are requesting.

[Maxilian]

Hmm? Of course a fighter can have good dex, why wouldn't he?
The Paladin, however, is far less dependent on weapon damage die, making Dex far more useful. Also, while the EK does have spells, they're all combat spells.

Not all of them and at lvl 7 you get the chance to select anything, it doesn't have to be a damage spell (Having in mind that as a EK you may not have a good INT, its not that uncommon to see a EK that evades taking many damage based spells cause the Hit / DC is going to be quite low)

[Ashrym]

At this point I feel like we are going in circles a bit, either I'm not making myself clear or we simply disagree on what I consider a basic thing.

I don't think it's circles so much as continuous discussion. There's nothing wrong with discussion on the premises on which me might disagree. That can open up our eyes on either side with an "aha" moment or give food for thought to other readers. So far the disagreement looks respectful and productive to me.


If class X (without backgrounds) has 7 different features outside of combat and background X provides 2 then class X now has 9 with that background.

If the fighter class has 2 different features outside of combat and uses the same background then the fighter now has 4 non combat features - I'm not saying the background dosent add features (why would I ? That's a fact) I'm saying the background dosent change the base chassis' mechanics.

I can't see how this can be disputed.

It's not being disputed. What's being discussed what what non-combat features a fighter actually has. What's being disputed is that having less options is actually an issue. From my perspective, fighters easily have enough options because of the shift in design philosophy on the 5e skill system compared to 3e or 4e where increasingly high numbers mattered a lot more.

As stated, fighters as a class have class features specifically useful for out of combat situations. The fighter skill list includes social and exploration skills for the fighter to use. CON save is used in forced marching as a save example. Bonus ASI's either increase ability scores and therefore related ability checks or give the option for non-combat feats and therefore the fighter has a choice of non-combat options provided by the bonus ASI class mechanic. Action surge second actions can be used for any action including out of combat skill actions in the social or exploration pillar. Those are class abilities.

The bottom line is that it's a class based system and fighters have less options (not no options or restricted options) because they focus on fighting, hence the name. I think they're great because they focus on fighting and still have non-combat options.

What's questionable is why someone else having a few more options actually matters if fighters still have non-combat options. It's a reversible stance where giving fighters more skill benefits would indicate skill based classes should also receive more combat based benefits for the same reason.


Of course I can just follow the NPC around and try to get my information based of that, but again so can any class/background combination. If the argument for not adding ribbon features becomes 'well you can try to do X and ask your DM what happens anyway' then I'm at a loss.

This looks like a strawman again. I don't recall anyone saying the fighter needs to follow an NPC around and get information based off of that, but using stealth to tail and spy on someone seems perfectly reasonable as a non-combat fighter ability. So does pulling a Batman and using intimidation to get people to provide information, which is a fighter skill and therefore a fighter non-combat ability.

I also don't recall anyone claiming the DM let's something happen anyway. The process is the player states and action; the DM determines if the action is automatically successful, impossible, or questionable in outcome and therefore assigns a difficulty; if the action attempted is impossible or goes without question no roll is made and if it's questionable the player rolls for chance to succeed. Actions that go without question don't change from class to class and actions that are impossible don't change from class to class. Being a fighter is irrelevant in those situations. Fighters use the same DC categories as other classes so being a fighter is irrelevant to that part of the process. The mechanic being used is the same for fighters as other classes so being a fighter is irrelevant to that part of the mechanic. The fighter character has access to the same skill lists as other characters with a combination of class and background skills as well as non-combat fighter skills. Being a fighter doesn't prevent the same access as other characters.

The resolution process in an ability check does not disfavor a character for playing a fighter when it comes to skills. The problem I see with your argument is that you are comparing fighters to high end skill users like rogues and bards as if that's the basic standard, which draws a false conclusion. Fighters are better off than most skill users specifically because of bonus ASI's not available to other classes.


There's a difference between fluff and crunch, we can always try to do whatever we want in tabletop dnd, but mechanical crunch helps the players succeed in certain areas or become unique, that's why they are there.

5e uses a specific mechanic that I just went over above. Fluff has nothing to do with the mechanic. 5e philosophy was designed around opening up skills to all players in order to do what they want and use that mechanic. Any character can do a lot with skills regardless of class makeup. That's why it's easy to acquire skills and DC's are low. The base line assumption on the DC's come from a completely unmodified ability check. Proficiency or ability is what come beyond the basic check mechanic and it's a combination of both that gives a good score. Expertise and similar abilities are there for better consistency when rolls are necessary but DM's shouldn't be forcing excessive rolling (review those guidelines in the core books if it helps) and the rules include automatic success (if something is considered possible) by spending 10 times the normal amount of time to accomplish the task (ie the updated version of the old "take 20" rule).

That means a 1st level fighter with the urchin or criminal background and 16 DEX can take the time to autosucceed on DC 25 lock because +2 proficiency and +3 DEX bonus plus the 20 makes 25 DC possible. No roll necessary and easy to do on a fighter right from 1st level. That's the crunch in the mechanics. It's also why knock is such a useless spell outside of some niche use.


Gwendol I never said a fighter had to spend all his feats on combat feats to be on par with other classes, I said even if he did he's not blowing other classes out of the water in DPR.

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here. Combat feats generally use 1-2 feats for damage on any class. Fighters are no exception here. A fighter can take the same 1-2 feats and any other similar combat class or what the fighter would have taken and would still have 2 bonus ASI's to use however he or she sees fit. Fighters don't need 2 more feats than everyone else for DPR because there aren't enough high damage feats that work together like that. Fighters use their combat style(s), multiple extra attack at higher levels, and action surges for high damage. A fighter will do good sustained damage in a game without any feats at all.


The point with that was to show that all this versatility that additional feats bring to the table is being blown out of proportions. The base fighter class isn't so much ahead in DPR pre feats that he can spend his ASIS' on non combat feats and still remain the best 'fighting man' in the party.
You can take a look at Kryxs DPR of classes if you want.

I've seen the charts and they make assumptions I don't find true often enough in actual play that I would agree with everything on them. I think they work for some basic generalization but the number of feats isn't really necessary, there are too many variables in party composition, combat, and opponent actions that can get missed, and combats are not long enough to play out the averages properly. Those are the same reason the encounter building guidelines also have issues and require looking at what is actually happening at any given time.


the main thing I can take away from this is not that the suggested features are wrong or unfun

It's a reasonable takeaway. I am not sure if the fun would change or not. My doubts lay in the fact the abilities discusses are already possible for anyone who want to focus on playing a fighter in various forms already so it seems like change for the sake of "but rogues and bards can get higher numbers".


So again thanks for taking the time to adress and discuss this with me guys, I appreciate it.

You are welcome. :)


Hmm? Of course a fighter can have good dex, why wouldn't he?
The Paladin, however, is far less dependent on weapon damage die, making Dex far more useful. Also, while the EK does have spells, they're all combat spells.

Cantrips and 4 out of 13 spells known are of any school and avoiding combat spells avoids the need for INT investment. I would take alter self at 8th level over a combat spell any day because it opens up something I cannot do with skills.

An example list could be: light, mending, mold earth; shield, absorb elements, protection from evil / good, unseen servant; arcane lock, eternal flame, alter self, cloud of daggers; nondetection, magic circle, haste; mordenkainen's private sanctum, and fabricate.

There's certainly going to be combat spells in the list but there are plenty of spells that might appeal to a fighter. Arcane lock, eternal flame, and private sanctum are there for defending areas and keeping them well lit. Arcane lock and eternal flame being permanent with private sanctum capable of becoming permanent does give a mage feel to the subclass. Rope trick, invisibility, alarm, or leomund's tiny hut are also things that might be appealing depending on the party makeup and fighter build choices. Presuming all the spells would be for combat isn't any different than presuming all the feats need to be for combat.


I do think there is a trope of the Fighter or Barbarian playing Bad Cop and getting information out of people. I'm not sure it wouldn't be better to just Homebrew a feat. Its easier for a Fighter to take a Feat than any other class.

The trope looks like it should be covered in the intimidation skill as an option. I agree it makes more sense to create a feat or even a full subclass as opposed to messing around with the basics. I would be more inclined to support a fighter subclass called "vigilante" that stresses skills over more combat features before supporting a change to fighters.

I see an advantage in that method in that it doesn't force change on players who like the existing options.

I'd be more inclined to have the subclass allow for adding 2 skills from the rogue skill list at 3rd level and have expertise in them, allow for using a proficient skill as a bonus action at 7th level (edit: maybe change this to fast hands or a +5 bonus to a skill when action surging), add expertise in 2 more skills (but not add more skills) at 10th level, add DEX save proficiency at 15th level, and add evasion at 18th level off the top of my head for something that's more skill focused.

I think I have more concern with the OP's premise and approach more than a concern that a skill based fighter would be an actual issue.


Another thing to keep in mind is the Big Dumb Fighter Trope and Big Dumb Barbarian Trope. While it might not be fair to any particular character, if you've dumped Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma and then you are complaining that you need a boost in social situations, I have little sympathy for you.

Yup. A player shouldn't make a character, choose to forego giving the character out of combat options, and then be surprised that the character build doesn't have those options.

[Specter]

I'm late to this party, but in 5e we already improved much of this through backgrounds, that let you get any skill you want, and flavor abilities. EK gets a combat ability at level 7 unlike BM and Champ because their magic can already be useful outside of combat. Find Familiar, for instance, makes you kind of the group's scout.

So I don't think you need to add any ability at all. If you really feel like it, give him Know Your Enemy and be done with it.