D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Manbearcat]

Yes, and sort of.

The "sort of" is the off-putting part for you then. Can you elaborate on your sense of "sort of" there. Can you evaluate it with respect to the below 1 - 5:

1) Close Burst 3; visible and audible area directly around the Fighter. Sensible and limited to that for balance concerns with other "of-level" abilities.

2) Str for attack; representing either (i) primal roar of defiance/challenge (ii) martial athletic training/warrior acumen/muscle memory/coordination at reproducing the movements of a feined retreat or repositioning.

3) Will for the defense being attacked; the enemy's physical body is not being imposed upon (Fort), its armor/defensive postures/coordination is not being circumvented (AC), its not an attempt to touch the physical body (Ref). It is testing mental resolve to resist the egocentric compulsion to engage or testing mental acuity/insight in detecting slight imperfections within the coordination of the athletic movements that may betray the feigned retreat/repositioning.

4) Enemies are slid (repositioned) to be adjacent (or as close to it) to the warrior after losing the Str vs Will test as they are drawn in.

5) Automatic 1W damage (with no Str modifier) to adjacent enemies. Less automatic damage (3-5 points) than a normal MBA. Another attack roll for a successful hit would marginalize the exploit into near worthlessness as its accuracy would be negatively affected outside the scope of other "of-level" options.

 

[WarlockLord]

Here's the problem as I see it. Feel free to send all kinds of nasty and threatening emails/PMs.

The fighter is mundane. The wizard is magic. Magic > mundane. Is this the way it should be? No, but it's the way it is commonly perceived. And the fighter needs to stop being a mundane.

Over in the 14th level rogue vs dragon thread, a few posters are screaming to high heaven that the dragon shouldn't be hurt by mundane means because the rogue should be held to the same standard as a mundane human being. And you know what? That doesn't work. Let's take some mundane human beings, such as Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, or any other Olympic athlete.

Now what the hell are they going to do against a dragon, or a demon lord, or even a CR 3 shadow?

The answer is nothing. Because when you get out of the realms of something mundane humans can hurt, no amount of human potential is going to save you. You need something special of your own. And the D&D fighter, who's sole claim to relevance is "hits things harder", does not have that. You cannot have magical entities with abilities designed to screw over mundane humans such as incorporeality AND give mundane humans the ability to fight them. You can have mundane human level shenanigans, you can have crazy-high superheroic screw you monsters that are immune to weapons Gygax-style, you cannot have both!.

Many people will claim that this problem is solved by giving the warriors magic items. Most of these are inferior to wizard spells. It's a callback to the old Conan stories where Conan was going up against horrible thing of the week #57 which was immune to swords or whatever, and he mysteriously found the plot blade/had a wizard help him/had a dream from a deity/whatever. And this just doesn't work. You either have the question of "why not give it to the people with actual powers who can use it better," or the question of "why are these people crafting things which they can't use and can be turned against them?" And of course trying to disguise the fact your character is a commoner with bigger numbers who owns a hat of disintegration.

Now, if you want to have both magic crazytown with incorporeal ghosts, adamantine-skinned dragons, teleporting flying demon wizards, and the rest of that stuff while still having a totally mundane fighter class....well, you can't have it both ways. You can give the fighter powers like Beowulf, Archbishop Turpin, and other mythological heroes the fighter is supposedly based on yet doesn't represent very well. You can not have magic crazytown or phase out the mundanes after a certain point, but you simply can't have Michael Phelps fight Zeus and win. It just wouldn't happen. You can have Sir Bob the fighter awaken his demigod blood, pull mythic superhuman feats out of his ass Beowulf or Pecos Bill style, or have him pick up magic at some point and become a death knight, hell knight, or whatever, but he has to exceed the capabilities of a mundane human being at some point in his life or he'll just be stuck as the dead guy in magical crazytown.

Lastly, I'm going to address a counterargument I've seen before.

"The fighter is part of a team! He's useful and valuable! He protects his allies and the party from bad guys and they buff him!"

No. No he's not. The fighter, as conceived, can't actually "defend" the party from high level opponents. He can't tank an AoE regardless of edition - the wizard's still getting hit. In non-4e editions (mainly familiar with 3e, but I own 2e books) the wizard has as good or better defenses, such as the ability to fly out of melee range, the brokenness of 2e stoneskin, the 3e stupid buff stacking, retarded splatbook spells, contingencies, yadda yadda yadda. He can sort of tank at low levels, but everyone's squishy and dies. Clerics have heavy armor, actual defensive spells, and can heal themselves. At high levels, the melee fighter's contribution is to make the cleric waste spell slots on healing him. And he does less damage than the wizard.

The worst part is that he can be easily replaced by charmed, dominated, animated, or summoned minions who go in front to take melee hits. And you don't need to waste spell slots healing those. At high levels, you could make the argument that there's no IC reason to bring a fighter - he's endangering himself and causing the group to waste resources, and the only reason you brought him along is because Steve the player is a good guy and you still owe him five bucks for pizza.


So there you have it. Pick one, completely mundane fighter OR magical crazytown.

 

[B.T.]

Regarding Come and Get It: I would say that a feigned retreat would involve Charisma rather than Strength, and I don't much care for the automatic damage.

At high levels, the melee fighter's contribution is to make the cleric waste spell slots on healing him.

If this is your attitude, then I don't think you'd have fun playing anyway.

 

[Stalker0]

One of the things the designers discussed early on may be of relevance here.

The mentioned that one of the issues that started to creep up in 3rd edition (especially towards high levels) is the weakness of damaging effects. Damage did not keep up compared to incapacitate and death spells, so players started favoring those more.

There may be a bit of that reflected in the fighter as well. We have gotten used to incapacitation having a significant power, and feel that a class without it can't cut it. But if the fighter's damage is such that he is mowing through monsters left and right....well that's a lot of fun. As my group likes to say "Death is the ultimate status condition"

 

[billd91]

Just as DM fiat is a decree from author or director stance (with absolute authority) of what happens within the shared imaginary space when adjudicating a player proposal, player fiat is a decree from author or director stance (with absolute authority) of what happens within the shared imaginary space and then they resolve their own proposal by way of mechanical resolution. Using a codified exploit or a spell that (i) imposes upon the fictional elements external to you and (ii) happens when you say so is player fiat. Players cannot decree without mechanical resolution backing them. They can make a proposition to the DM and try to barter/persuade/convince the DM that it happens. But that is not player fiat. That is DM fiat as the DM is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not the shared imaginary space is affected as the player has proposed.

I think this abuses the nature of the term fiat as role playing games understand them. If you're using a rule to mechanically adjudicate the results of an action (as in the Immediate Vengeance example), that's not really a fiat any more than making any kind of declaration of your PC's action is a fiat. Saying "I'm attacking the giant" or "I am making a series of jabs with my dagger at the lion's eyes" are no less fiats than declaring Immediate Vengeance.
I suppose Come and Get It reaches a bit of fiat by if the player has meaningful choices in exactly how the targeted creatures move, but I don't think it really reaches that level either.

Fiat, in RPGs, embodies more than just making a decree derived from applying a rule. It's not a DM fiat if the NPC wizard's fireball does 32 points of damage to all PCs in a particular radius. Most people wouldn't even consider the selection of a legal target location as the center of the fireball as a fiat. The usage of the term implies more such as making a meaningful decision not covered explicitly by the rules, breaking the rules for special circumstances, or deciding between competing interpretations.

I think this is a major reason so many of the earlier posts in this thread expressed confusion over what exactly the OP meant. The term fiat is being misapplied. It's not a fiat to blind an opponent with a spell or charm him any more than it is a fiat to stab him for damage.

 

[Argyle King]

Here's the problem as I see it. Feel free to send all kinds of nasty and threatening emails/PMs.

The fighter is mundane. The wizard is magic. Magic > mundane. Is this the way it should be? No, but it's the way it is commonly perceived. And the fighter needs to stop being a mundane.

Over in the 14th level rogue vs dragon thread, a few posters are screaming to high heaven that the dragon shouldn't be hurt by mundane means because the rogue should be held to the same standard as a mundane human being. And you know what? That doesn't work. Let's take some mundane human beings, such as Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, or any other Olympic athlete.

Now what the hell are they going to do against a dragon, or a demon lord, or even a CR 3 shadow?

The answer is nothing. Because when you get out of the realms of something mundane humans can hurt, no amount of human potential is going to save you. You need something special of your own. And the D&D fighter, who's sole claim to relevance is "hits things harder", does not have that. You cannot have magical entities with abilities designed to screw over mundane humans such as incorporeality AND give mundane humans the ability to fight them. You can have mundane human level shenanigans, you can have crazy-high superheroic screw you monsters that are immune to weapons Gygax-style, you cannot have both!.

Many people will claim that this problem is solved by giving the warriors magic items. Most of these are inferior to wizard spells. It's a callback to the old Conan stories where Conan was going up against horrible thing of the week #57 which was immune to swords or whatever, and he mysteriously found the plot blade/had a wizard help him/had a dream from a deity/whatever. And this just doesn't work. You either have the question of "why not give it to the people with actual powers who can use it better," or the question of "why are these people crafting things which they can't use and can be turned against them?" And of course trying to disguise the fact your character is a commoner with bigger numbers who owns a hat of disintegration.

Now, if you want to have both magic crazytown with incorporeal ghosts, adamantine-skinned dragons, teleporting flying demon wizards, and the rest of that stuff while still having a totally mundane fighter class....well, you can't have it both ways. You can give the fighter powers like Beowulf, Archbishop Turpin, and other mythological heroes the fighter is supposedly based on yet doesn't represent very well. You can not have magic crazytown or phase out the mundanes after a certain point, but you simply can't have Michael Phelps fight Zeus and win. It just wouldn't happen. You can have Sir Bob the fighter awaken his demigod blood, pull mythic superhuman feats out of his ass Beowulf or Pecos Bill style, or have him pick up magic at some point and become a death knight, hell knight, or whatever, but he has to exceed the capabilities of a mundane human being at some point in his life or he'll just be stuck as the dead guy in magical crazytown.

Lastly, I'm going to address a counterargument I've seen before.

"The fighter is part of a team! He's useful and valuable! He protects his allies and the party from bad guys and they buff him!"

No. No he's not. The fighter, as conceived, can't actually "defend" the party from high level opponents. He can't tank an AoE regardless of edition - the wizard's still getting hit. In non-4e editions (mainly familiar with 3e, but I own 2e books) the wizard has as good or better defenses, such as the ability to fly out of melee range, the brokenness of 2e stoneskin, the 3e stupid buff stacking, retarded splatbook spells, contingencies, yadda yadda yadda. He can sort of tank at low levels, but everyone's squishy and dies. Clerics have heavy armor, actual defensive spells, and can heal themselves. At high levels, the melee fighter's contribution is to make the cleric waste spell slots on healing him. And he does less damage than the wizard.

The worst part is that he can be easily replaced by charmed, dominated, animated, or summoned minions who go in front to take melee hits. And you don't need to waste spell slots healing those. At high levels, you could make the argument that there's no IC reason to bring a fighter - he's endangering himself and causing the group to waste resources, and the only reason you brought him along is because Steve the player is a good guy and you still owe him five bucks for pizza.


So there you have it. Pick one, completely mundane fighter OR magical crazytown.

Maybe it's just me, but I more commonly remember Conan simply hacking the evil magic user's body apart.

My answer to a lot of what you proposed is quite simply that real life doesn't have CRs and/or levels. Against an ancient dragon (or similarly strong foe,) you either need to be that strong yourself or find enough people willing to help you that you have a hope of bringing the thing down. The latter is something which is pretty well supported in the fiction which D&D was inspired by; Smaug was worthy of facing an army by himself. That's really not the point though.

Yes, magic bends reality. As such, that tends to trump means which rely on the rules of reality because magic need not abide by those rules. However, there are several game systems which have found excellent ways of dealing with that simply by having magic systems which make more sense in the context of the game world and the fiction of the game.

One example is having casting a spell cost Fatigue Points (or something similar.) While there are optional rules for D&D which introduce magic points or spell pool systems, that's the not the same thing. FP is associated with the body and becoming tired; casting spells physically tires you because it is taxing to warp the fabric of reality. A wizard can still cast when FP is drained, but doing so is potentially very harmful and starts to burn HP (or comes with other problems.) On the other side of the coin, FP can be used for non-magical things as well; the fighter can push his body to deliver more force with a blow or to add a little more oomph into an effort to jump over something.

I also think part of the problem is due to what encounter design has become in D&D. Sure, I think it's cool that we have a codified way to say "ok, this many monsters means this challenge." What I don't think is cool is that the 'encounter' has become another unit of measure within the game. Characters are now measured in how many encounters they can get through. While I do see merit in that, I think it has created the problem of the D&D Workday and needing to make sure all classes interact with the measuring unit of encounter the same way.

If the world is your encounter and things grow more organically from play, I believe it starts to matter less that the wizard can rewrite reality a limited number of times because burning all of your juice for doing so leaves you in a weakened state. Granted, there is then the argument that "well, then everybody just rests when the wizard can't keep going." I think that's only true in a game where the wizard is so much better than the fighter that the fighter can't hack it without the wizard. If both feel more equal, it becomes less of an issue. Likewise, if -as a GM- the group is aware that the world beyond their characters doesn't stop moving just because the party has, I think that helps too.

 

[functionciccio]

Nobody is suggesting a Fighter should summon badgers, and I think you know this. We're talking about cool tricks combat masters do in combat by being masterful which don't require DM permission and give them some level of Fiat at the table. There should - must, IMO - be more narrative control for non-casters if Next is going to avoid the caster/non-caster disparity of the past. And if it doesn't, then I just have no interest.

Amen.

So the fighter character will never be able to exert control over the game world in the same way a wizard character can, because if a fighter had an ability equivalent to, say, glitterdust, but without the limitations of spell slots, it would be game-breaking.

Well, actually the MDD should be able to accomodate something like this.
First of all, the list of maneuvers should be expanded considerably, introducing cooler and more powrful maneuvers, like "Stunning" maneuvers, "Blinding" maneuvers, or even "Killing" maneuvers.

Powerful maneuvers should be accessed only by high level Fighters, but a 20 level Fighter should be able to know (and use) almost every maneuver available.

And yes, Fighters can use the "stab in the eye maneuver" every time they like, because, as you say, they "don't lose the ability to poke someone in the eye after they try to do it once".

We can prevent this to became game-breaking using the existing mechanic: by spending martial damage dice to perform the maneuver, and by designing correctly the maneuvers.

For example:

Stab in the Eye
Prerequisite: 13th level, Weapon Focus
Effect: As an action, you can spend martial damage dice to make a blinding attack.
Make a melee attack. If the attack hits, deal damage as normal, and the target suffers
an additional effect based on the number of dice you spent.
If you spent three dice, the target must make a Constitution saving throw (DC 10
+ your Str modifier + your weapon attack bonus from level). On a failed save,
the target has disadvantage on all attack rolls and checks until the end of its next turn.
If you spent six dice, the creature must make a Constitution saving throw (DC 10
+ your Str modifier + your weapon attack bonus from level). On a failed save,
the target is blinded. At the start of your next turn, the target must make a Constitution saving throw;
a successful save ends the blindness.

Beheading Strike
Prerequisite: 18th level, Weapon Focus, Weapon Mastery
Effect: As an action, you can spend six martial damage dice to make a killing attack.
Make a melee attack. If the attack hits, make another attack roll against the same target.
If you hit again, deal damage as normal. If this second attack is a critical hit and the target
has 80 hit points or fewer, you lop off its head, killing it instantly.


I pulled this stuff out of my [MENTION=40136]SS[/MENTION]. Obviously this is just an idea.
Professional designers should able to do much much better.
You can play with levels, damage thresholds, prerequisites and saves to balance it appropriately.

The fun stuff is that, in this way, the Fighter is not doing "reality bending" actions at all.
He is doing what every skilled warrior should be able to do with a sharp and pointy sword.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Remathilis]

I'll give you two (as the first is "controversial")

Warrior of Legend throws down the gauntlet, roars a challenge to his enemies to pursue a prideful, perhaps reckless, course in wading into melee with him.
[...]
Fighter player fiat right there with codified mechanical resolution to back it up. Player decides when this thematic, tactically beneficial cool thing happens. Sounds nifty eh?

CAGI is the best example of what NOT to do in Next. Here is why.

A wizard cast's a mind control spell which forces his foe to attack another foe. We accept this because we're willing to accept that magic could cloud or control a foe's perceptions and make him unable to determine friend from foe (creating a personal "fog of war" for the afflicted). Since its magic, we accept it can do something magical, such as control the thoughts of another. More importantly, we have a "source" or a "reason" it happens; there is a extraordinary effect going on. If you asked a bystander what happened and why, he could create a logical cause and effect chain ("wizard wiggles his fingers, Bob attacked Larry").

CAGI affects the game from a narrative level. Its premise (that a fighter can goad foes into attacking him, and then they get punished for doing so) is feasible but its execution requires a certain level of assumption on the part of the players involved. It assumes the foe is undisciplined, or gullible, enough that the trick will work unerringly (with only those who succeed the will save would see the trick). It doesn't seem to account for the experience, intelligence, or even primary battle tactic (the wizard rushes forth with his dagger drawn) nor does and its manages to to somehow be 100% accurate in the weapon hit portion. (I wager if every foe the warrior drew in stands around for another round, the fighter could not replicate the ability to attack all foes with 100% accuracy). Furthermore, there is no reason for the trick to work. Our bystander couldn't tell you why it worked, or why the fighter couldn't do it again the next round, who what the foes charging the fighter were thinking.

Third, I really dislike abilities that override a player's ability to react unless there is mind control magic involved. A person who is playing a brave fighter who doesn't run in fear shouldn't be forced to unless there is magical power at work. Similarly, if I gave a monster a CAGI-like power (the monster roars, make a will save or charge!) how many people would accept that they're 20 Int wizard, the cowardly rogue, and the priest of healing would all rush said monsters and dutifully accept their whack? I'm sure I'd hear all manner of complaining from how "My wizard would use magic missile" or "my rogue would never make a frontal assault".

tl;dr: A charm spell effects the target within the confines of the narrative. CAGI changes the narrative. I don't like powers that overtly changes the narrative, especially visibly (an issue I have with powers like King's Castle or other daily martial strikes). I don't mind luck/fate points or powers (which are invisible in the confines of the in-game narrative) but I dislike "I know this trick, but its so risky I can only try it once every 24 hours" type of powers and I REALLY despise "I am telling you what your monsters are doing this round" without magic.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

CAGI is the best example of what NOT to do in Next. Here is why.

A wizard cast's a mind control spell which forces his foe to attack another foe. We accept this because we're willing to accept that magic could cloud or control a foe's perceptions and make him unable to determine friend from foe (creating a personal "fog of war" for the afflicted). Since its magic, we accept it can do something magical, such as control the thoughts of another. More importantly, we have a "source" or a "reason" it happens; there is a extraordinary effect going on. If you asked a bystander what happened and why, he could create a logical cause and effect chain ("wizard wiggles his fingers, Bob attacked Larry").

CAGI affects the game from a narrative level. Its premise (that a fighter can goad foes into attacking him, and then they get punished for doing so) is feasible but its execution requires a certain level of assumption on the part of the players involved. It assumes the foe is undisciplined, or gullible, enough that the trick will work unerringly (with only those who succeed the will save would see the trick). It doesn't seem to account for the experience, intelligence, or even primary battle tactic (the wizard rushes forth with his dagger drawn) nor does and its manages to to somehow be 100% accurate in the weapon hit portion. (I wager if every foe the warrior drew in stands around for another round, the fighter could not replicate the ability to attack all foes with 100% accuracy). Furthermore, there is no reason for the trick to work. Our bystander couldn't tell you why it worked, or why the fighter couldn't do it again the next round, who what the foes charging the fighter were thinking.

tl;dr: A charm spell effects the target within the confines of the narrative. CAGI changes the narrative. I don't like powers that overtly changes the narrative, especially visibly (an issue I have with powers like King's Castle or other daily martial strikes). I don't mind luck/fate points or powers (which are invisible in the confines of the in-game narrative) but I dislike "I know this trick, but its so risky I can only try it once every 24 hours" type of powers and I REALLY despise "I am telling you what your monsters are doing this round" without magic.

What you describe is good when you are playing a numbers game where the world immersion is almost non-existant and you don't bother trying to put together, logically, why that worked the way it did. You just shrug your shoulders and accept it. Unfortunately, I don't like that when trying to play an RPG.

 

[Manbearcat]

@billd91

Where you are seeing abuse, I'm seeing clarity and accuracy. I think you're conflating "fiat" with "adjudication" or "arbitration". The "fiat" (the decree from absolute authority) is what happens after the "arbitration" or "adjudication" is performed. "Fiat" in RPG terms is the ability to impose your vision/will/rendering upon the shared imaginary space/fiction by way of decree from absolute authority. It is not the ability to "play a character from 1st person perspective and manipulate the world by way of his limited locus of control". Saying "I attempt to hit the giant with my sword; I hit 27 AC or less and do 15 damage" is not fiat. Fiat is affecting your will upon the shared imaginary space of more than just a single character. You decree (from absolute authority) that these guys move toward you (even if they don't want to) and get hacked. You decree (from absolute authority) that you are ret-conning this attack that would have killed/maimed your ally and intervening before it does so to stop the event. The dice/fortunes arbitrate the effectiveness of your decree...but you have the absolute authority to say it happens right now and "stuff that is normally outside of the locus of control of a character" is "within the locus of control of a player"; repositioning good guys or bad guys (CaGI, GOH), subverting the march of time and ret-conning (re-rolling a failed stealth roll after guards would have noticed you or stopping an attack that has hit, etc), the DM giving authority of the player to render the fiction after a check/decision-point in a Skill Challenge, etc.

DM fiat = Decree from absolute authority after arbitrating or adjudicating a dispute or a grey area not canvassed by the rules. This decree shapes the imaginary space.

Player fiat = Decree from absolute authority after the dice/fortunes resolve the mechanics (however, in other games this can be detached from codified resolution). This decree shapes more than just what would be within the locus of control of a character in the world; its power for the player to shape the imaginary space external to the in-world character.