D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Obryn]

The topic over in the Doing It Wrong post has mutated, so I've started this new one to continue the conversation.

The mutant topic is Fighters. What has been done right about them in the past? What has been done wrong? How can they be fixed in Next?

I'll start - For me to even look its way, the Next Fighter must have "fiat" capabilities. What I mean by this is, consider the Wizard.

The Wizard casts Charm Person and imposes his will upon the situation; the DM must make a save and that's it.

The Wizard casts Magic Missile. The target takes damage, barring immunities. That's it.

For me, the Fighter must have a similar degree of ability to make declarations like this. They should not be playing "mother may I" while the Wizard is bending reality over their knee.

-O

 

[Kobold Stew]

This is a good question --

it seems that this is the function that Maneuvers will take (and when we eventually see the Ranger and the Paladin, it will be interesting to see how this develops).

Some maneuvers have exactly the sort of flat abilities you are asking for here (Bull Rush, Trip, Disarm), which accomplish some of that.

The damage reduction (1/turn) from Parry will also be a big boost to Fighters, if it stays as it is.

There is, though, a sense in which the Fighter has (almost) always been the "easy" class to play -- providing a straightforward experience for those who want it (and this often includes new players). This might be worth keeping -- and the non-maneuver functions for MDDs accomplishes this.

 

[Remathilis]

Not sure what you mean by "fiat".

A fighter pulls out his sword and attacks the corrupt barkeep. He's imposed his will on the situation (namely, he's done with negotiations). Its not much different than a wizard using charm person or a rogue using Intimidate, except for the mechanical means of doing so (attack roll, saving throw, skill check) and the end result (a cowering, charmed, or dead barkeep).

Now, if your talking that the fighter should have some automatic (or near automatic) way of making the barkeep his friend, we're going to differ a bit. There doesn't need to be a "charm person" ability for fighters. In the above example, the fighter could use skills (not so much in 3.5, but by Next a charisma opposed roll is not out of the realm of possible) just as the rogue can. I also have no problem with 1/day abilities that augment combat or skill use (such as Ace in the Hole, or some auto-crit attack for fighters). I'm also a big proponent of Action Points and the ability to influence the game at a fate/luck/plot level. I draw the line at maneuvers that are specific in their nature (such as King's Castle, which is a viable trick that should have a chance of working more than automatically once per day) or that border on absurd or magical ability (Come and Get It and its ability to summon anything from kobolds to demigods over for a good thwacking).

 

[Obryn]

This is a good question --

it seems that this is the function that Maneuvers will take (and when we eventually see the Ranger and the Paladin, it will be interesting to see how this develops).

Some maneuvers have exactly the sort of flat abilities you are asking for here (Bull Rush, Trip, Disarm), which accomplish some of that.

The damage reduction (1/turn) from Parry will also be a big boost to Fighters, if it stays as it is.

There is, though, a sense in which the Fighter has (almost) always been the "easy" class to play -- providing a straightforward experience for those who want it (and this often includes new players). This might be worth keeping -- and the non-maneuver functions for MDDs accomplishes this.

The main issue with disarm/trip/etc. are, IMO, two-fold. First, because of their at-will nature they are inherently limited in power... You can't Blind at-will, for example, without either making it vastly unlikely with big penalties or else making it such a resource investment it becomes your only trick. Second, they lack applicability against many classes of foes whereas stunning, paralyzing, etc. are more universally viable.

I reeeally want the notion of Fighter as the "n00b class" to die in a fire. I want every archetype to have complexity levels available to them with a difference in role or flexibility, maybe, but not overall power.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

The main issue with disarm/trip/etc. are, IMO, two-fold. First, because of their at-will nature they are inherently limited in power... You can't Blind at-will, for example, without either making it vastly unlikely with big penalties or else making it such a resource investment it becomes your only trick. Second, they lack applicability against many classes of foes whereas stunning, paralyzing, etc. are more universally viable.

I would not be surprised if there were some maneuvers in the optional area of Next that added riders like blind, stun, deaf, or slowed to a foe in exchange for your combat dice for the round. I mean, Pathfinder found a way to do it (they augment critical hits) so "exchange 4 dice to stun a foe you hit for 1 round) sounds perfectly fine. (Maybe a limit of can only affect the same foe once in a 24 period?)

 

[Ahnehnois]

The Wizard casts Charm Person and imposes his will upon the situation; the DM must make a save and that's it.

This is a terrible example of the point I think you're trying to make. Sure the wizard casts charm person and the DM rolls a save. And then the player tries to get the charmed character in a particular way, and the DM decides how well it actually works.

For me, the Fighter must have a similar degree of ability to make declarations like this. They should not be playing "mother may I" while the Wizard is bending reality over their knee.

By "mother may I", I assume you mean "playing a game with a DM", which D&D pretty definitively is. I think if anything you've got it backwards; the ability of a spellcaster to dictate play should be reduced by making spells more difficult to cast, unpredictable in effect, and more limited in scope.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This is a terrible example of the point I think you're trying to make. Sure the wizard casts charm person and the DM rolls a save. And then the player tries to get the charmed character in a particular way, and the DM decides how well it actually works.

By "mother may I", I assume you mean "playing a game with a DM", which D&D pretty definitively is. I think if anything you've got it backwards; the ability of a spellcaster to dictate play should be reduced by making spells more difficult to cast, unpredictable in effect, and more limited in scope.

Exactly!

One misconception about Charm Person is that it doesn't work like Dominate Person. I want magic and martial to remain separate and I don't want a fighter to be able to "Charm" someone like a Wizard can because that goes against the whole idea of magic. Manipulating someone through magic is just one example of what makes a spellcaster special. I can see a fighter manipulating someone through mundane means but I don't see it having the same effect as a Wizard can with magic and I want to keep it that way. I don't want all classes to be equal in every way, we already had 4th edition do that.

 

[Obryn]

I would not be surprised if there were some maneuvers in the optional area of Next that added riders like blind, stun, deaf, or slowed to a foe in exchange for your combat dice for the round. I mean, Pathfinder found a way to do it (they augment critical hits) so "exchange 4 dice to stun a foe you hit for 1 round) sounds perfectly fine. (Maybe a limit of can only affect the same foe once in a 24 period?)

Anything on a crit is meaningless to me here. It's not a tactical choice at that point - it's pure luck

This is a terrible example of the point I think you're trying to make. Sure the wizard casts charm person and the DM rolls a save. And then the player tries to get the charmed character in a particular way, and the DM decides how well it actually works.

By "mother may I", I assume you mean "playing a game with a DM", which D&D pretty definitively is. I think if anything you've got it backwards; the ability of a spellcaster to dictate play should be reduced by making spells more difficult to cast, unpredictable in effect, and more limited in scope.

OK. Replace with "color spray" if you must, or Otto's Irresistible Dance. But charm person is still an example of fiat - if you cast it on a barkeep and they fail their save, if the DM declares he doesn't like that outcome and changes nothing... Well, wouldn't that be kinda cheating and/or railroading? The caster has declared a narrative change through player fiat; the DM needs to adapt by the rules.

Scaling back the casters is one alternate approach, but I'd rather both have the ability to dictate parts of the narrative.

-O

 

[Obryn]

Exactly!

One misconception about Charm Person is that it doesn't work like Dominate Person. I want magic and martial to remain separate and I don't want a fighter to be able to "Charm" someone like a Wizard can because that goes against the whole idea of magic. Manipulating someone through magic is just one example of what makes a spellcaster special. I can see a fighter manipulating someone through mundane means but I don't see it having the same effect as a Wizard can with magic and I want to keep it that way. I don't want all classes to be equal in every way, we already had 4th edition do that.

See above re: Charm Person. I'm not arguing domination here - but it's the caster forcing a narrative change.

I am fine with different scopes of course; 4e has vastly different scopes for different roles and classes. The basic overall power levels should, however, be in the ballpark with swordy/stab by guys able to get in on the fiat action.

 

[Imaro]

See above re: Charm Person. I'm not arguing domination here - but it's the caster forcing a narrative change.

Emphasis mine... what do you mean by "narrative change"? Doesn't any action taken by any PC in the game result in a change in the narrative being constructed at the table?