D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[Sacrosanct]

This idea that you must take out the mooks in 1 hit is just a really strange hill to die on to me.

I don't think it's so strange when it's limited to the archetype where it fits theme. I have always been a proponent for speed of play (one reason I avoided WoTC editions until 5e), so I am all for just skipping the process if 99% of the time you know the result anyway. It also gives the fighter something extra others don't get.

There are a couple of ways I've seen it done and I've done it myself that is simple:

From Bugbears&Borderlands:
Cannon Fodder (2nd level): If you hit a creature of CR 1/4 or less, its HP are brought to zero regardless of damage. At 6th level, the CR of creatures is increased to CR 1/2, and at 10th level the CR is increased to 1. If the hit is a critical hit, the CR is doubled for that attack.

From GEAS:
Hold the Line (low level trait): You can make one opportunity attack for each creature triggering it this round by spending 3 vigor. This does not count as using your response.

Cannon Fodder (higher level trait). Any opponent you hit with an attack that has a MC of 1H or less is brought to zero vitality, regardless of damage. Attacks against these creatures have the Action Point cost reduced to 1.

 

[Gammadoodler]

In 5E it's been solved. After a certain point, very low level monsters will be killed with one hit if the PC does a decent amount of damage with one hit. A CR 1/8 bandit has 11 HP. GWM or SS build will always take them out with one hit, someone with the dueling style will take them out most of the time with 1 hit.

This idea that you must take out the mooks in 1 hit is just a really strange hill to die on to me. Even the vaunted Jon Wick sometimes shoots the low level guys more than once to kill them. The fact that fighters don't do massive damage in one hit and sometimes even at high level is just the way the game works. They do more reliable damage, they don't necessarily do the most damage in one hit. I don't see a reason to change that.

The thread is asking for what a high level mundane fighter could look like.

Greater on-tap lethality should be one of those things IMO.

I am ambivalent as to whether that comes from a change in monster design, class design, or both.

There are advantages and disadvantages to either approach. People are faulting the 'minion' approach based on the specifics of its administration rather than the underlying conceptual basis for it.

The advantage of running it on the minion side is that you can give GMs more options for encounter structure without messing with class balance.

 

[Oofta]

The thread is asking for what a high level mundane fighter could look like.

Greater on-tap lethality should be one of those things IMO.

I am ambivalent as to whether that comes from a change in monster design, class design, or both.

There are advantages and disadvantages to either approach. People are faulting the 'minion' approach based on the specifics of its administration rather than the underlying conceptual basis for it.

The advantage of running it on the minion side is that you can give GMs more options for encounter structure without messing with class balance.

But then it's not a fighter thing. In any case, personally I kind of hate the minion structure because it's not at all dependent on the level of the attacker. The "At a certain level you kill CR X and below" is better, I just don't think it's necessary or even particularly iconic. It also opens potential loopholes.

I could see using the cleave rules from the DMG - if you hit a creature that was at full health and kill it and the attack would have hit a creature that's within reach you can carry the damage over. Makes the GWM more effective against low level monsters when there are multiple. That or use mobs, even stat a bunch of low level monsters as a swarm and describe every swing taking out multiple monsters depending on what they are.

Other than that I don't have any better ideas (largely because I don't see this as a particular issue) on this and it's a + thread so we should just drop it.

 

[Gammadoodler]

But then it's not a fighter thing. In any case, personally I kind of hate the minion structure because it's not at all dependent on the level of the attacker. The "At a certain level you kill CR X and below" is better, I just don't think it's necessary or even particularly iconic. It also opens potential loopholes.

I could see using the cleave rules from the DMG - if you hit a creature that was at full health and kill it and the attack would have hit a creature that's within reach you can carry the damage over. Makes the GWM more effective against low level monsters when there are multiple. That or use mobs, even stat a bunch of low level monsters as a swarm and describe every swing taking out multiple monsters depending on what they are.

Other than that I don't have any better ideas (largely because I don't see this as a particular issue) on this and it's a + thread so we should just drop it.

Thats exactly what I mean. It would depend on the parameters.

If it's something like, "a successful attack on this monster by any creature at or above X level kills it instantly"

then you've coded it to the attack action, and you've spelled out the level where it is relevant.

The result is that you've built in a trait that asymmetrically benefits users of the attack action, that doesn't cause angst related to the statblock, and allows you to use the monster when there is a mix of creature levels on the battlemap.

At the end of the day, it's not that different from minionization in play though.

 

[Oofta]

....At the end of the day, it's not that different from minionization in play though.

We're just going to have to disagree on that one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The result is that you've built in a trait that asymmetrically benefits users of the attack action, that doesn't cause angst related to the statblock, and allows you to use the monster when there is a mix of creature levels on the battlemap.
At the end of the day, it's not that different from minionization in play though.

Well, there's a difference in that it still allows save:1/2 to autokill such creatures in their AE, while the minion mechanic required they be hit (transliterated into 5e, that'd mean minions all have something like evasion).

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well, there's a difference in that it still allows save:1/2 to autokill such creatures in their AE, while the minion mechanic required they be hit (transliterated into 5e, that'd mean minions all have something like evasion).

It would be different in some aspects depending on the specifics of the parameters.

In the parameters posted, the difference is that save-based damage spells would ablate hp as normal while attack-based spells would have a potential to auto kill.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the parameters posted, the difference is that save-based damage spells would ablate hp as normal while attack-based spells would have a potential to auto kill.

An attack can miss, so isn't ever really an autokill. While save:1/2 can be an autokill, if it happens to dependably inflict >2x the victim's hp.

 

[Gammadoodler]

An attack can miss, so isn't ever really an autokill. While save:1/2 can be an autokill, if it happens to dependably inflict >2x the victim's hp.

Sure, it's a place where the casters can make a bet.

Would they rather have the chance to bypass hp by using an attack spell, or would they rather have the certain effect of a save spell that has to get through targets' hp.

So, yes, it'd take away the pseudo-evasion that 4e minions currently have, but it'd add back normal monster hp.

The net result, I'd expect, is that classically low-hp monsters would get torn up by both save spells and attacks. Classically higher hp monsters, though, that needed minionization to make them 'threshable' would get torn up by attacks. Save spells would still do damage, but they would have less of a chance to kill on both failed and successful saves (unless they were higher damage spells).

Edit: To be clear, I wasn't saying it'd be exactly the same, but that it'd be substantially similar in that single successful attacks would still take the 'minions' off the board, and successful 'minion' saves would still often mean they survive (at high levels) anyway.

Edit 2: The point of this was really just to highlight how the parameters could work to achieve the desired effect of greater on-tap martial lethality from the monster manual side of the equation. Specific implementation I'd leave to the professionals.

 

[Quickleaf]

You've done this a couple times, and I just wanted to say how I really appreciate your effort to keep bringing this thread on target. So thanks for that. Really.

Yep I think it's important that we have a culture of respecting when other posters want to focus on a particular question and label it a plus (+) thread.

I'll admit that I struggle with the way 5e is designed, particularly class design, that I feel creates needless constraints on creativity for endeavors like sharing ideas about high-level fighter design. The 5e palette as written is limited insofar as what gets prioritized mechanically in a class. Many of the things I would enjoy writing into the fighter would make my hack no longer resemble the other classes in the game, so that sort "wild eyed" imaginative effort becomes less germane – because it's just too far afield from what else exists in the system. That's why I tried to offer a really constrained (at least that's how it felt to me writing it) mirroring of the rogue's high-level features, just seen through the fighter lens.