D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Obryn]

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.

Okay. Then replace with another term of your choice. I think the meaning of what I'm going at has become clear over this thread if it wasn't at first.

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.

And I completely love those sorts of narrative-control abilities. I prefer my combats structured in a larger-than-life sense, and abilities like CaGI are beautiful ways to have players exert control over the game. It's a quick shorthand for any number of imagined maneuvers - from a feint which catches people unawares to a straight-up challenge. I don't sweat the small stuff, and CaGI has never once been a laugh line at my own table except in the, "Wow, I just got hosed" sort of sense.

I don't use abilities like this against PCs without magic of some sort - I like my players to have agency over their characters - but monsters that I control are fair game, as far as I'm concerned. They have no such narrative protections.

I liked pre-errata CaGI, but right now it goes against Will, which addresses some of your concerns about tricking hard-to-fool enemies, and that's pretty okay by me, too.

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.

You know, you keep saying things like this in complete disregard of how myself and many other 4e players find this sort of thing more immersive.

It's possible to have a different opinion or a different perspective without asserting that those who disagree are either willfully lying, obstinate, or ignorant.

-O

 

[Imaro]

@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.

Emphasis mine... so in what way, by your statements above, is a wizard using spells... enacting fiat? He's using spells from the perspective of his character and they can be stopped by numerous external (saves, resistance, anti-magic, etc.) or internal (attack rolls, rolling of hit dice, etc.) factors. I'm really not understanding what "fiat" is being used to mean in the context of this discussion...

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You know, you keep saying things like this in complete disregard of how myself and many other 4e players find this sort of thing more immersive.

It's possible to have a different opinion or a different perspective without asserting that those who disagree are either willfully lying, obstinate, or ignorant.

-O

I have my opinion about the game, which I am 100% entitled to, and you have yours, which you are 100% entitled to. I don't have to withhold my opinion of the game just because you like it.

I find it to be a shuffling, numbers game with role playing tacked on to it. Kind of like Monopoly with a storybook inside. I played the game since it's beginning because a friend of ours spent lots of money on the books and the AP's and we played it until we couldn't take it anymore. The stuff ended up being sold on Ebay and we jumped on Pathfinder never to look back.

 

[WarlockLord]

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

Care to explain this comment? I play quite a bit and have a blast. I just don't play fighters.

 

[Remathilis]

And I completely love those sorts of narrative-control abilities. I prefer my combats structured in a larger-than-life sense, and abilities like CaGI are beautiful ways to have players exert control over the game. It's a quick shorthand for any number of imagined maneuvers - from a feint which catches people unawares to a straight-up challenge. I don't sweat the small stuff, and CaGI has never once been a laugh line at my own table except in the, "Wow, I just got hosed" sort of sense.

14 pages ago, when I saw the OP on this thread, I KNEW it was going to end up a CAGI fight with 4e players going gaga over the idea they they get to control the monsters too while non-4e players would end up arguing how its illogical, non-immersible, and unfair.

I had hoped I would be wrong.

I don't use abilities like this against PCs without magic of some sort - I like my players to have agency over their characters - but monsters that I control are fair game, as far as I'm concerned. They have no such narrative protections.

Nope! If its good for the goose, its good for the gander. You wouldn't do this for magic, would you (PCs are immune to charm spells, or vorpral weapons, or petrification spells, but NPCs/Monsters are fair game)?

Personally, I never force a PC to make certain decisions or think a certain way without magical control. I ask the same respect from my players. Even skill checks or morale only change their mindset, it never dictates their actions. However, in a game where CAGI must exist, I'd have to enforce intimidate checks and bluff checks on PCs too (Sorry Bob, you believe her).

I liked pre-errata CaGI, but right now it goes against Will, which addresses some of your concerns about tricking hard-to-fool enemies, and that's pretty okay by me, too.

That still doesn't take into account things like monster intelligence (a mind flayer and an ogre are equally susceptible), combat style (my archer-ranger charges forward and PUNCHES the guy?!), or discipline (a band of orcs and the King's Guard both are willing to break formation to charge the lone fighter, which is a really good way to break up the dwarven phalanx in the 2nd example I'd wager).

CAGI is bad game design and I hope never to see anything resembling it in Next. A CAGI fighter maneuver is a surefire deal breaker for me. And with that, I'm done.

 

[Manbearcat]

I beg your pardon. I guess I wasn't as thorough as I thought. I was trying to pin down Obryn's use of the term with respect to the thread that he had created (and my understanding of it). As such, given that the thread is about "Fixing the Fighter", that definition was devised in that context; Mundane classes (specifically the Fighter) do not have extra-physical phenomenon at their beck and call. Therefore, fiat (shared imaginary space alternation) must be granted to them external to their locus of control (in the metagame) as the supernatural (where fiat exists organically) is not within their internal locus of control. They do not possess:

Omniscience - Divinations or the ability to converse/barter with extra-planar creatures.
Transmutations - The ability to be anywhere they wish or turn the world on its head (literally).
Conjurations - They cannot bring forth something from nothing (or to obey the 1st Law, something brought forth from somewhere else).
Enchantments - The ability to make malleable other creatures' will or outright steal it.
Etc, etc.

These things all work just fine from 1st person perspective and allow casters the benefit of shared imaginary space affecting fiat as standard issue. The metagame and 1st person perspective is married in the caster classes as it is inherent to spellcasting. We've conjured the concept of magic from whole cloth (it doesn't exist in the real world) and attributed to it supernatural effect (and fiat empowerment). Therefore, tautologically speaking, mastering the supernatural and being able to deploy it on demand, which provides fiat by proxy, is doable from 1st person perspective (in character)...but that perspective is entrenched in the metagame. Its the same as if a God that is all omniscient and all powerful claims to just have 1st person perspective. Of course it doesn't. Its perspective is inevitably influenced by and a product of metaphysics in the same way that a spellcasters is influenced by and a product of the metagame.

Its a different starting point than for a mundane creature who possesses no omniscience, no ability to reshape existence or reprogram free will.

Given these things, the only way for us to provide the same level of fiat (shared imaginary space authorship) to Fighters as we do for Wizards is to leverage the metagame (Author and Director stance exploits that can be leveraged on demand so that players of those characters can say THIS AMAZING THING HAPPENS NOW).

Saying a Fighter shouldn't have the same shared imaginary space authorship that a wizard does because a wizard (which we, us, as genre aficionados, have contrived) has a supernatural perspective that is influenced by and a product of the metagame/metaphysics is a sort of strange twist on "blaming the victim." And then expecting him to just deal or accept his lot/station.

 

[Remathilis]

I beg your pardon. I guess I wasn't as thorough as I thought. I was trying to pin down Obryn's use of the term with respect to the thread that he had created (and my understanding of it). As such, given that the thread is about "Fixing the Fighter", that definition was devised in that context; Mundane classes (specifically the Fighter) do not have extra-physical phenomenon at their beck and call. Therefore, fiat (shared imaginary space alternation) must be granted to them external to their locus of control (in the metagame) as the supernatural (where fiat exists organically) is not within their internal locus of control.

Unfortunately, it creates a disjunction between effect and source.

Wizard: I create an illusion of a monster, and all the foes charge it and get ripped to shreds.
DM: How'd you do that?
Wizard: Magic.
Fighter: Well, I should a boasting challenge, and they all rush me and I whack them.
DM: How'd you do that?
Fighter: Because I want to.

The wizard has an excuse (magic) built into the character to do extraordinary things. The fighter (being mundane by D&D terms) does not have such an excuse. Therefore, we must accept one of the following:

1.) The fighter cannot do extraordinary things.
2.) The fighter possesses some "magical" force as well (psionics, ki, mettle, mythic blood, etc), allowing him the same access to the extraordinary as a wizard.
3.) The fighter can do extraordinary things, but does so by narrative control (luck, fiat, will of the Gods) that cannot be explained in the context of the world, only in the context of the story. (IE: that group of mooks was just stupid enough to try to bum rush the fighter).

Unfortunately, I doubt the three answers will find compatibility in Next, even with modules.

 

[Manbearcat]

That still doesn't take into account things like monster intelligence (a mind flayer and an ogre are equally susceptible), combat style (my archer-ranger charges forward and PUNCHES the guy?!), or discipline (a band of orcs and the King's Guard both are willing to break formation to charge the lone fighter, which is a really good way to break up the dwarven phalanx in the 2nd example I'd wager).

I'm assuming you're referring to immunity here because it is just flat out not as effective against mind flayers as it is against ogres. Your standard ogre has about 20 Will defense while your standard mind flayer has about 33. That's a vast chasm of difference. If we regress them to the exact same level (to reduce the level advancement noise in the equation), then you're still talking about a 4-5 point difference in defense (which is huge). I assume you're talking immunity though so it is likely moot.

Regardless, there was absolutely zero chance for this thread to go anywhere productively and just serves to further show the immense divide in creative agendas and design expectations of the respective D&D camps. I would cringe as a designer of 5e if I read these sorts of threads. Appeasing one side requires embedding metagame tools in the system (or at least providing them) while appeasing the other requires denouncing them as heresy and burning the witches who they feel turned D&D into a newt. Yeah. Good luck with that.

 

[Imaro]

I beg your pardon. I guess I wasn't as thorough as I thought. I was trying to pin down Obryn's use of the term with respect to the thread that he had created (and my understanding of it). As such, given that the thread is about "Fixing the Fighter", that definition was devised in that context; Mundane classes (specifically the Fighter) do not have extra-physical phenomenon at their beck and call. Therefore, fiat (shared imaginary space alternation) must be granted to them external to their locus of control (in the metagame) as the supernatural (where fiat exists organically) is not within their internal locus of control. They do not possess:

Omniscience - Divinations or the ability to converse/barter with extra-planar creatures.
Transmutations - The ability to be anywhere they wish or turn the world on its head (literally).
Conjurations - They cannot bring forth something from nothing (or to obey the 1st Law, something brought forth from somewhere else).
Enchantments - The ability to make malleable other creatures' will or outright steal it.
Etc, etc.

Okay, now that I think I understand you, I have to say I disagree with this assertion... I still don't understand how the use of skills and other extraordinary abilities don't enable "fiat". That's the part I am having a hard time with. Knock and Open Locks both have the same effect on a lock? Invisibility and Stealth... Diplomacy and Charm person... and so on. These are part of their internal locus of control and allow player fiat, at least as I understand your definition of it.

These things all work just fine from 1st person perspective and allow casters the benefit of shared imaginary space affecting fiat as standard issue. The metagame and 1st person perspective is married in the caster classes as it is inherent to spellcasting. We've conjured the concept of magic from whole cloth (it doesn't exist in the real world) and attributed to it supernatural effect (and fiat empowerment). Therefore, tautologically speaking, mastering the supernatural and being able to deploy it on demand, which provides fiat by proxy, is doable from 1st person perspective (in character)...but that perspective is entrenched in the metagame. Its the same as if a God that is all omniscient and all powerful claims to just have 1st person perspective. Of course it doesn't. Its perspective is inevitably influenced by and a product of metaphysics in the same way that a spellcasters is influenced by and a product of the metagame.

So are skills part of the metagame? What about abilities like Evasion or Rage?

Its a different starting point than for a mundane creature who possesses no omniscience, no ability to reshape existence or reprogram free will.

Given these things, the only way for us to provide the same level of fiat (shared imaginary space authorship) to Fighters as we do for Wizards is to leverage the metagame (Author and Director stance exploits that can be leveraged on demand so that players of those characters can say THIS AMAZING THING HAPPENS NOW).

If metagame = skills and extraordinary abilities, and even some feats I agree... if not then I don't.

Saying a Fighter shouldn't have the same shared imaginary space authorship that a wizard does because a wizard (which we, us, as genre aficionados, have contrived) has a supernatural perspective that is influenced by and a product of the metagame/metaphysics is a sort of strange twist on "blaming the victim." And then expecting him to just deal or accept his lot/station.

I think it's the means, not the end, that is in question here.

 

[Obryn]

I have my opinion about the game, which I am 100% entitled to, and you have yours, which you are 100% entitled to. I don't have to withhold my opinion of the game just because you like it.

I find it to be a shuffling, numbers game with role playing tacked on to it. Kind of like Monopoly with a storybook inside. I played the game since it's beginning because a friend of ours spent lots of money on the books and the AP's and we played it until we couldn't take it anymore. The stuff ended up being sold on Ebay and we jumped on Pathfinder never to look back.

Nobody ever said you couldn't? You can like or dislike it all you want, and I could really care less. But when it goes to this:

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.

It sounds an awful lot to me like you're trying to tell me how my game is, or else asserting that "non-existent immersion" and "not bothering putting it together logically" are necessary traits of 4e and similar games. This is just one post of many like this; it's kind of a theme.

-O