Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[Shadeydm]

Big thumbs up on this one, with this caveat:

I don't want any one class to be "the best at fighting", to the degree Mike suggests. No more than a minor edge to make up for a relative lack of non-combat stuff. But even then, I'd rather carve out a decent niche for non-combat capabilities for the Fighter.

Depending upon the character creation rules you might have a scenario where instead of making a ranger the optimal choice becomes customizing your fighter to make him more ranger like same thing with your paladin or rogue. If the fighter is superior to the other melee classes how do you protect those classes without making the fighter the guy who can only do athlectics endurance intimidate etc?

 

[Choranzanus]

In my opinion fighters are really dependent on how exactly fighting system works. For example, I disagree that fighters could not be defenders in past editions, I think when you used initiative system tacticaly that was quite possible. But in any case that is something that can be done without resorting to things like marking. In past (2e times) mages had trouble with spell failure and they were more limited in spells. I would also remove critical hits from the game and put them back stronger as special ability of fighters (or warriors to be precise).

What I would like to hear:
1) That fighters will reconcile doing large damage with stoping enemies in their tracks (being a defender). Because these things really support each other and I dont thing having different builds of this type makes much sense.
2) No powers or the like. I am not totally opposed to per day abilities but what is really not acceptable is some explanations of them like you have lucky hit and so you do more damage etc. You dont choose to have luck, you should actually roll high on attack roll or something etc.
3) Fighters should really be capable of fighting with all weapons, especialy ranged and melee. The 4e fighter was a disaster in this sense.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Perhaps on the issues of fighter distinctiveness and what they do outside of combat are answered the same way: Fighters are all (equally, or very close to equally) the best at combat, but their customization (e.g. backgrounds, skills, etc.) determine how they contribute outside of combat?

I'm not sure what I think about that.

 

[Janaxstrus]

But people (not you specifically) seem to be forgetting relativity!.

Your fighter (level 10)and your wizard (level 10) in the party should be equal in some nebulous I'm not a game designer way for effectiveness.

And if the fighter should happen to pin down a level 10 bad guy wizard...in melee...he probably wins...if he can't he might lose (balance see?)

However, the more common situation is that the fighter and wizard (level 10) are going out to kill the big bad evil necromancer who happens to be 15th level plus (just a wag)...if the fighter happens to get one on one with that wizard...there might be a problem.


So best at fighting doesn't mean the fighter shrugs off all wizards stuff and sticks them in the heart Conan style, but he does have a good chance with level appropriate challenges his group is facing.


P.S. Why do we discuss fighter versus wizard in a vacuum anyway? Are the players always fighting each other?

It says he can take every spell a wizard can throw at him, and keep fighting. Not that he can win 50% of the time, or that he has to pin the wizard down or lose. It specifically said ALL of the wizards spells, and continue to fight.

 

[Njall]

Depending upon the character creation rules you might have a scenario where instead of making a ranger the optimal choice becomes customizing your fighter to make him more ranger like same thing with your paladin or rogue. If the fighter is superior to the other melee classes how do you protect those classes without making the fighter the guy who can only do athlectics endurance intimidate etc?

That's an interesting question.
They said that they're basing the game on the assumption that every character should be at least competent at what they call "the three pillars of the game": Roleplaying, Exploration, Combat.

So, now, say that the fighter is great with every weapon and every combat style. He's, however, only decent at intimidating stuff, and he's a good tracker, but can't make a survival check for the life of his ( literally).

Conversely, a ranger might choose to be a great archer ( and mediocre with a sword ), to be as good as the fighter when it comes to scaring people, and has enough resources to be a great tracker, to survive just about any environment and to give the party a boost to their travel speed all day long, (while, for example, a rogue would be slightly worse at combat than your average ranger, great at bluffing, intimidating and diplomacy and pretty good as a scout, and so forth).

In the end, I'd say that it depends on how you see a ranger... if you think a ranger is a fighter with some woodsy skills, then yeah, he'll probably be better represented by a fighter with a background; if you think that he's a scout that's really good at fighting, however, you might not have the resources you need to model him if you start off as a fighter.

 

[Janaxstrus]

No. We can't assume that. Because there's absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. Sure, a person could invent that assumption because they have some ridiculous need for the wizard to be the end-all-and-be-all of classes in the game and anything that is mentioned that might even remotely impinge on that has to be quickly snuffed out with veiled, sarcastic remarks... but they are in no way actually correct.

Yes we can assume that.

It specifically says a high level fighter can shrug off ALL of the spells a high level wizard can toss at him and keep fighting. ALL.

This means either A) Fighters are immune to magic. or B) Save or Die doesn't exist

And FYI, I play clerics about 80% of the time, prop that strawman up!

 

[Njall]

It says he can take every spell a wizard can throw at him, and keep fighting. Not that he can win 50% of the time, or that he has to pin the wizard down or lose. It specifically said ALL of the wizards spells, and continue to fight.

Nope, it doesn't. "Being the best at fighting"=/= "won't go down in a straight fight, ever".
Let's assume a duel between a wizard and a fighter. If the fighter wins 60% of the time, he's "better than the wizard" at fighting. If he has a 60% to beat any other opponent, then he's legitimately "the best at fighting", but he'll be beaten from time to time.
You're conflating "being the best at fighting" with "being invincibile"... that's not the same.
Someone that's invincible is certainly the best at fighting, but the reverse is not true.

 

[GM Dave]

Or maybe Hold (and a bad roll) means you stop the high level fighter for a round, then he rolls again, and you can't kill a high level Held fighter in one round if you're a wizard. Or maybe a high level fighter gets an action point that lets him shrug off a spell. Or maybe Hold only works on characters with less than 4 HD. Or maybe a high level fighter can javelin a wizard to death in one round, so you better hide instead of risking Hold Person. Or . . .

PS

.. or to avoid the one Hold is equivalent to 200 hp of damage that they say Hold has an exhaustion mechanic. Each hold laid on a target does level x5 of exhaustion.

A 10th level Wizard hits with a Hold for 50 hp of exhaustion. When the total reaches 200 or the combination of damage and exhaustion then the target is held.

Exhaustion might burn off at the rate of 1 hp per melee round. This means a fighter could break out of the hold if left around for a while and the Wizard does not have enough spells to keep topping up the Hold.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Nope, it doesn't. "Being the best at fighting"=/= "won't go down in a straight fight, ever".
Let's assume a duel between a wizard and a fighter. If the fighter wins 60% of the time, he's "better than the wizard" at fighting. If he has a 60% to beat any other opponent, then he's legitimately "the best at fighting", but he'll be beaten from time to time.
You're conflating "being the best at fighting" with "being invincibile"... that's not the same.
Someone that's invincible is certainly the best at fighting, but the reverse is not true.

Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting.

I don't think it gets much clearer than what Mike himself said. EVERY SPELL and keeps fighting. Wizard is out of spells = easy fighter kill.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Also, BECMI. BECMI fighters get an additional attack when they can hit their foes with a 2. So now we have a 13th level fighter, with STR 17, a +1 sword, and an Expert level of Weapon Mastery (+4), let's say with a sword. That's a +7 to-hit, which means any monster with AC of 2 or lower activates the fighter's additional attack. He rolls 2d8+3 damage: 5-19 points of damage. And if he inflicts max damage or disarms two opponents or isn't touched by an attack in a round, then he gets to force a morale check on 8 hit dice worth of creatures. Two orcs guaranteed to go down every round, and eight of them running or surrendering after getting just a taste of his prowess. Fighters also get another additional attack 24th level, and another at 36th level.

Can you move and make all the attacks in one round, or do you have to remain stationary?