Complex fighter pitfalls

[Ahnehnois]

The problem with making a complex fighter is that there are so many sacred cows to tiptoe around. If we had a real health system instead of hit points, and a more diverse set of options in combat, than the fighter would have more things to be good at. As it is, making a really good complex fighter is like trying to write a symphony for a 32 bit synthesizer. There just isn't much to work with. Adding in new class abilities doesn't really fix much.

And this is really why the 3e fighter is not mechanically good enough at high levels and why the 4e approach failed to fix anything.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

With good modular design, the simple and complex fighter can coexist side-by-side. The simple fighter can have a pre-selected set of feats/maneuvers; the complex fighter can allow for more choice and variation at about the same level of power.

For example:

Simple fighter: +1 damage per level; +1 to hit every 3 levels, +1 AC every 3 levels. Feats A, B, C at levels X, Y, Z.

Complex fighter: Choose four maneuvers at level 1, plus one maneuver per level thereafter, in addition to regular feat choices. Selecting certain feats grant additional maneuver choices. Maneuvers are mundane, at-will, modify an attack or defense, may be tailored to or independent of a fighting style, and may be combined or used in opposition.

Bonetti's Defense: Subtract 1 damage per level from your attack (up to -5) to add 1 AC per level (up to +5). If fighting in rocky terrain, give an additional +2 to AC. AC improvement lasts until your next attack. May be used in conjunction with Thibault.

Capa Ferro: Subtract 1 AC to add +2 damage to an attack. Cancels the AC bonus of an opponent using Bonetti's Defense.

Riposte: Gain +2 to hit against an opponent who damaged you last round.

Parry: Immediately block the attack of an opponent, but give up your next turn.

Thibault: Subtract +1 to hit on an attack; gain +1 AC. If used with Bonetti's Defense, does not increase AC to above +5 but allows the AC bonus to be used against an opponent using Capa Ferro.

Agrippa Style: Renders your attack immune to Riposte.

Inigo's Step: Prerequisite - Riposte. Allows use of Riposte against an attacker using Agrippa Style.

 

[pemerton]

the simplest possible fighter is simpler than the simplest possible wizard

Why? The simplest possible wizard would have one versatile at will spell chosen from a list (much like the fighter's weapon list): say, Produce Flame (can be used for stuff including a ranged attack that does damage as a longbow) and Magical Force (can be used for minor TK, to open doors, and to attack someone a la Magic Missile: auto damage comparable to a sling).

This simplest wizard would also have two class features to correspond to the fighter's armour and adventuring gear respectively: mage armour (+4 AC while unarmoured and conscious) and mage sight (allows sensing magic, reading magic sigils, etc).

Using the at-will spell for stuff other than attacking (say, igniting haystacks, or knocking vases of mantlepieces), and using mage sight for other stuff besides sensing and reading magic (say, recognising undead or demons from their foul aura), would be adjudicated by the GM using the same improvisation system that they use to adjudicate actions by any other PC (including the simple fighter).

 

[GX.Sigma]

Why? The simplest possible wizard would have one versatile at will spell chosen from a list (much like the fighter's weapon list): say, Produce Flame (can be used for stuff including a ranged attack that does damage as a longbow) and Magical Force (can be used for minor TK, to open doors, and to attack someone a la Magic Missile: auto damage comparable to a sling).

This simplest wizard would also have two class features to correspond to the fighter's armour and adventuring gear respectively: mage armour (+4 AC while unarmoured and conscious) and mage sight (allows sensing magic, reading magic sigils, etc).

Using the at-will spell for stuff other than attacking (say, igniting haystacks, or knocking vases of mantlepieces), and using mage sight for other stuff besides sensing and reading magic (say, recognising undead or demons from their foul aura), would be adjudicated by the GM using the same improvisation system that they use to adjudicate actions by any other PC (including the simple fighter).

Sure, but that doesn't match anyone's expectations of what a wizard is in D&D.

 

[pemerton]

Sure, but that doesn't match anyone's expectations of what a wizard is in D&D.

True, but it's not a long way away from how you might implement a 3E-ish sorcerer in Basic D&D. So I think it is something for which a 5e-ish game might have room.

And conversely, if they're not going to do something like this on the arcane side, it might be helpful to think about why not when trying to work out how to make PCs work on the martial side.

 

[Tovec]

Why should that cause suspension of disbelief problems? At the level at which you're fighting Great Wyrms, the Fighter should be the equivalent of Hercules, Grappling Nemean Lions and Cretan Bulls, etc.

*grumbles* NO! The fighter shouldn't be the equivalent of HERCULES.

At epic, possibly but I will disagree with you to my dying day that at any point before the fighter becomes a god (or half-god) with untold cosmic-godly strength that the fighter should be equivalent to HERCULES!

With the same kind of specialization, training and skill I can fight like Jet Li or (the real) Chuck Norris. I'm never going to be equal to a greek god! I'm never going to redirect rivers in order to clean stables. It isn't within my power, it isn't going to happen.

I don't want it, you can if that suits you but SHOULD doesn't belong anywhere near that sentence.

1) Maneuvers like Disarm, Bull Rushing and Trip often don't apply. Disarming a dragon poses obvious difficulties. Bull Rushing a Great Wyrm or Tripping a Purple Worm is also tricky, especially for a human sized character. In 3e, these tactics were effectively impossible. 4e solved that problem by saying "ignore the fluff, apply the mechanic"..... but that causes suspension of disbelief problems and, from what I've seen of 5e, doesn't seem to fit its philosophy.

First, it should be impossible to trip a creature that cannot be tripped. The same as you should be ale to walk through an incorporeal creature. It is an element of their physiology. I don't see people complaining that using ice against the giant ice monster is somehow unfair.

Second, 3e made them tricky, as in you weren't doing it all the time, not impossible. If it were made easier, or less penalties for failure, then the problem more or less sorts itself out. I have seen other systems try and replicate and fix the "impossibility" of 3e and most have succeeded just by changing how it is done. I do agree that making these effects work against everyone for reasons that boggle the mind is not a good way to go.

2) Maneuvers like Disarm, Bull Rushing and Trip kind of suck. By and large, they are a 1 round-control effect. With 5e's easier movement, these maneuvers are even weaker than in previous editions. Having one party member spend his action for a chance at countering 1 foe's action only works if there is a particular, high priority foe. Such foes are likely to be highly resistant to the tactics (see note 1).

They suck when they are used ineffectively. When all you are doing is knocking the guy down (prone) or disarming him of his weapon, which he can just collect the next round and hit you with then yes sure. But if you disarm him at a critical point when he is about to do something BAD then it doesn't suck. It doesn't suck when you are able to trip him (or knockback) into a canyon which causes him to die like a disney villain. A lot of maneuvers are situational. What sucks is when they aren't special. When they are just used to move him back 2 squares for no other reason than you can.

It should be a special thing used for coolness or necessity, not something used for flash or to get more attacks or damage in.

In case you are wondering the best solutions I have seen is probably giving a straight penalty for non-proficiency instead of an attack of opportunity for trying at all. The penalty on the roll being a good enough deterrent to trying foolishly, instead of giving an the attacked a chance to negate it as an immediate action.

 

[Deadboy]

I will never understand why martial characters capable of legendary feats are more part of the world's collective story-telling than reality-warping wizards, yet people are more accepting in D&D of Wizards who can do anything and Fighters Who Can't Have Nice Things...

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't want it, you can if that suits you but SHOULD doesn't belong anywhere near that sentence.

Fair enough? But please then explain your first sentence in that post:

*grumbles* NO! The fighter shouldn't be the equivalent of HERCULES.

If that suits you, but SHOULDN'T doesn't belong etc etc...

 

[GX.Sigma]

I hope there's a decision point built into the fighter class (around 10th level) where you can choose to be either a superhero or a warrior-king.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No. My point is that designing a complex fighter is hard.

Well, 4e did it, so hard, maybe but not impossible.

Some groups will accept a fighter grappling a dragon whose foot weighs more than the fighter's maximum encumbrance level (PC strength capped at 20, whee). Many groups will, however, balk. Disarm only really works if your foes are, well, armed. Further, reasonable Fighter maneuvers tend to be really, really weak compared with spell-based debuffs.

You're not describing hard to design, you're describing a prejudice against not merely a complex fighter, but a capable fighter. You are, indeed, describing an opinion - held by "many groups" - that the fighter must suck.

It is not designing a complex, balanced fighter that is the difficulty. It is overcoming the prejudice against a fighter that has mere parity with casters that is hard.

That doesn't mean that fighters have to suck. Give them absolutely dominant offense and top-tier defense and they'll do fine. But that does mean you need to give them absolutely dominant offense, which doesn't currently seem to be in the cards.

There is no balance to be obtained by making one class tightly limited by spurious 'realism,' and others completely unrestrained in breadth and scope of power. It doesn't matter if you have the fighter hitting and one-shotting every monster in the book - he'll just be an overpowered choiceless beatstick instead of an underpowered choiceless beatstick.

I understand the call for 'simple' characters, but they're going to have to come from each archetype, and complex ones from each.


Seriously, I'm sorry if you didn't mean this way and I've just picked your thread to throw down this particular gauntlet, but it's an unacceptable demand. If 5e is going to be an 'inclusive' edition, it's going to have to include a balanced fighter that has parity with casters. It can be ignored by anyone who doesn't like it, but it needs to be provided. Not just the fighter, but each martial or 'non-caster' class, Warlord and Rogue as well, and Ranger if there's a non-casting version of it.

If 5e is going to be inclusive and bring everyone together, it - and the community that supports it - is going to have to get over this prejudice.



Edit: Yes, I am using the word "prejudice." I do not mean this as some sort of allusion to RL political issues, nor do I mean to diminish the importance of those issues. I am not calling anyone a bigot. The OP described a more or less hypothetical attitude, and I'm applying a label to it that fits.

Prejudice: "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

Which is exactly what we're dealing with here.