D&D 5E Martial Characters vs Real World Athletes

[TwoSix]

I'm a little disappointed we're only at 10% of the posts in the Fighters vs Spellcasters thread.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm a little disappointed we're only at 10% of the posts in the Fighters vs Spellcasters thread.

I'd participate more in these threads (and more vigorously) but I'm quickly (and by quickly I mean I already have fully) losing interest in participating in these song and dance threads (and these boards generally). I can only outline the reasoning for my position so many times and read the same (unsatsifactory) rejoinders before I want to gouge my own eyes out. Which, coincidentally, I think should be a high level fighter ability. If they can jump from orbit and remain uninjured then they should be able to gouge their own eyes out and terrify an opposing army into grovelling fealty. Aragorn should have done that IMO.

And I don't have anything much to say about 5e at this point so topics to post on are slim and none! I've got a PBP going but we may move that to real life if we have time so I may be pulling a CrazyJerome!

 

[TwoSix]

I'd participate more in these threads (and more vigorously) but I'm quickly (and by quickly I mean I already have fully) losing interest in participating in these song and dance threads (and these boards generally). I can only outline the reasoning for my position so many times and read the same (unsatsifactory) rejoinders before I want to gouge my own eyes out. Which, coincidentally, I think should be a high level fighter ability. If they can jump from orbit and remain uninjured then they should be able to gouge their own eyes out and terrify an opposing army into grovelling fealty. Aragorn should have done that IMO.

Yea, I'm pretty much on the same wavelength. My concerns have gradually evolved into regarding trad-style games, indie-style games, and the dispersion of authority between GMs and players as a toolbox, with different methods utilized to facilitate play for different systems and different players. If the game hits a rough patch, one can dig into the toolbox to find a method to make the game better and more pointed to the desired style of the table as an aggregate.

Additionally, at this point 5e has drained a lot of the juice from the casters vs non-casters debate, at least as it fits my preferences. While I do think casters are still superior, the delta between them has been lowered to a point that I find acceptable. I do wish for more fiat abilities and narrative control for fighters (rogues actually do have some, at least at higher levels), but that's something that can be handled by additional subclasses.

What I've discovered through indie-play is that my primary desire is to always drive play towards conflict. Eliminating set-pieces designed to showcase world design or verisimilitude has helped my DMing even in Trad games, and I've found techniques to drive play towards conflict even as a player. (Framing decisions as "I'm accomplishing X, tell me why I can't" rather than "Can I try to do this" has been super effective at getting the DM to focus on the immediate consequences of play.)

And I don't have anything much to say about 5e at this point so topics to post on are slim and none! I've got a PBP going but we may move that to real life if we have time so I may be pulling a CrazyJerome!

I'm hopeful you'll give 5e at least a perusal so you have a reason to stick around.

 

[Andor]

Because Hercules didn't have Totem Animals.

Don't be wet. If there is anything easier than refluffing the barbarian totem abilities I cannot imagine what it is.

This is nonsense. Fafhrd is simply much lower level than Hercules.

This is actually a perfectly valid answer in BECMI and 4e, where it is true that leveling represents apothesis from mortality to immortality. Now Hercules was never mortal and Fafhrd never became immortal, but in D&D terms that is acceptable interpretation of them in a cosmology where mortality and godhood lie on a continuum and levels represent the quanta along that continuum.

However in AD&D, with the exception of 4e, that is not the presented cosmology. It may well be that there will be options for instituting BECMI/4e cosmology in the DMG, and if so it will still hold in those campaigns.

But in most campaigns/game worlds it's just not true. Conan will never be able to wrestle a river from her banks, Dartagnion will never take the weight of the world from Atlas.

Frankly I prefer that cosmology, but it's not what D&D usually does and it's not what 5e does by default.

It is however very easy to model that cosmology in 5e, even with what we have now, if you will only admit that supernatural power is in fact supernatural and start tinkering from the Paladin or Eldritch Knight and not a sub-class which explicitly and deliberately eschews the supernatural.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is actually a perfectly valid answer in BECMI and 4e, where it is true that leveling represents apothesis from mortality to immortality. Now Hercules was never mortal and Fafhrd never became immortal, but in D&D terms that is acceptable interpretation of them in a cosmology where mortality and godhood lie on a continuum and levels represent the quanta along that continuum.

However in AD&D, with the exception of 4e, that is not the presented cosmology.

On the other hand:
1: Level 8 fighters were originally known as Superheroes - which undermines your assertions.
2: In AD&D there was a level soft-cap at around level 10.
3: Wizards were much much more limited in AD&D even than in 5e.

This cosmology would be fine. Where wizards are inherently limited and learning and finding spells is hard.

The outlying cosmology, the one that makes no thematic or worldbuilding sense, and is bad for gameplay, is that of Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit. That of 3.X where Wizards haveessentially unlimited power - and fighters are muggles.

But in most campaigns/game worlds it's just not true. Conan will never be able to wrestle a river from her banks, Dartagnion will never take the weight of the world from Atlas.

Frankly I prefer that cosmology, but it's not what D&D usually does and it's not what 5e does by default.

It is however very easy to model that cosmology in 5e, even with what we have now, if you will only admit that supernatural power is in fact supernatural and start tinkering from the Paladin or Eldritch Knight and not a sub-class which explicitly and deliberately eschews the supernatural.

The problem isn't supernatural power. The problem is confusing the supernatural with spells. Not all supernatural power is, should be, or behaves likes Spells. Hercules is supernatural but is not a spellcaster. He doesn't need crap like verbal and material components for his feats of strength. An Eldritch Knight isn't a mythic fighter. He's a fighter that also cast spells - a very different thing, and itself an archetype.

In order to model a decent mythological cosmology you need an entire collection of classes that can accomplish the supernatural - but aren't spellcasters. The Barbarian is ... reskinnable. The Eldritch Knight is a bad starting point.

 

[Morty]

As far as my opinion goes, I don't care about nebulous considerations of "power". I care about variety, versatility, agency and ability to shape the narrative. And from this point of view, 5e is still stuck in the same rut - without magic, you interact with the rules in the exact same way all the time, from level 1 to level 20, unless you manage to convince your GM to let you do something unusual with an ability check.

 

[pemerton]

I take your point about casters' power at high levels. But that at least makes sense: lobbing fireballs around is going to take out large numbers of enemy troops. Charging them with a sword, IMO, shouldn't (after a point; obviously a Fighter might take out many foes, but he/she shouldn't be a serious threat to a large army on his/her own). But the Fighter is going to have advantages in other situations.

In what other situations is the fighter going to have an advantage?

Also, I don't see why a 20th level fighter shouldn't be a serious threat to a large army on his/her own. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas clearly thought that they would pose a serious threat to a small force of orcs, and they probably weren't 20th level fighters in D&D terms.

it's ultimately the DM's province anyway: a poor DM can leave players uninvolved whether you have the rules there or not, and a good DM will give everyone something interesting to do. I lean heavily towards "as few rules to accomplish something as possible", so let's just leave this up to DMs.

I would prefer this as a methodology if it applied to casters also. So the caster simply has the INT-based, trained only skill "Create fire magic" and the GM decides what is reasonable or unreasonable for that skill to accomplish.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm hopeful you'll give 5e at least a perusal so you have a reason to stick around.

Having read every iteration of the public playtest (and giving lots of feedback) and having run 3 different one-offs throughout the process, I feel pretty confident I know the system from top to bottom to feel disinclined toward playing it. I may not know the exact specs of a few stray PC build feats in the live iteration, but I'm more than comfortable in my assessments.

I generally like Exhaustion. I like the idea of Concentration (its buff-stacking limitation is good in terms of execution). I love Background Traits. I love Legendary creatures and Lair Actions.

However, there is just far too much that I don't like that is absolutely embedded; core conceits, principles, and techniques that underwrite how an expectant play session should manifest. And that is a cleaned up AD&D + a few slightly modernized bells and whistles + PF archetypes + 3.x save paradigm/multiclassing + bounded accuracy (which makes martial classes underperform compared to their AD&D counterparts). One that relies on an AD&D ethos and principles (GM force and lots of interpretive rulings of martial/mundane action declarations) to produce the default play experience.

And don't get me wrong. I feel very, very confident that this is 100 % design intent. To that end, I feel that they did a great job. They produced a game that appeals to the OSR crowd, the 2e AD&D crowd that just wanted a modernized 2e rather than 3.x, the PF crowd, and the 4e crowd that liked the deep PC building rules (mostly players) but wasn't wedded to the the very distinct system components and the ethos/techniques of the system that made it what it was (certain GMs - like me). Is that big tent enough to pass muster? An exercise for the player-base I suppose.

In what other situations is the fighter going to have an advantage?

Also, I don't see why a 20th level fighter shouldn't be a serious threat to a large army on his/her own. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas clearly thought that they would pose a serious threat to a small force of orcs, and they probably weren't 20th level fighters in D&D terms.

I would prefer this as a methodology if it applied to casters also. So the caster simply has the INT-based, trained only skill "Create fire magic" and the GM decides what is reasonable or unreasonable for that skill to accomplish.

1) This is what I was getting at above in response to TwoSix. The implications of bounded accuracy on martial heroes is profound. This system wants to be modernized AD&D, but AD&D fighters would shred legions of canon fodder far, far, far, far before level 20. They would outclass armies (on their own) due to their ridiculous AC vs to hit, HPs, ridiculous saves, ridiculous attacks per round and either the Heroic Fray rules or the 1 attack/level versus said infantry that you would outclass. Army. Decimator. Gone from this edition.

2) I still want to know why the player fiat of Background Traits (available at 1st level to all characters and my favorite part of the system!...one that is oddly at tension with the design ethos of 5e) can't be extended to later on in the same way that Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies are? Why can't Fighters get traits at (say 11 and 17) that give them an extension of (with enhanced potency of course) the 1st level fiat power from Background Traits? What is so "gone rogue" about that? Stuff like:

Destined Scion - Get supernatural-like (not magic) stuff (Beowulf etc) to do supernatural things on whatever schedule.

Leader of Men - Men-at-arms flock to you, or you have gathered them, to carry your standard and fight for you. The standing force (army, what-have-you) legitimate, codified functionality in action resolution.

Warrior of Legend - Your presence moralizes/mobilizes layfolk, gives your enemy peers pause, and causes their forces to shrink (literally and figuratively) and/or abandon cause. Again, codified, legitimized fiat. Like Background Traits. Not GM whim or discretion.

Those things would provide players of Fighters with legitimate means to comparably (with respect to Wizards) affect the trajectory of noncombat conflict resolution. It would do so with tech that is already in the system (Background Traits) and it would play to archetype.

Repeatedly interfacing with a bounded accuracy task resolution system (and inevitably failing repeatedly), subject to GM will/inclination/interpretation won't do the job (at all).

 

[Morty]

Also, I don't see why a 20th level fighter shouldn't be a serious threat to a large army on his/her own. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas clearly thought that they would pose a serious threat to a small force of orcs, and they probably weren't 20th level fighters in D&D terms.

I can see where this is coming from, myself. D&D 3e, although I make no statements about the earlier editions, makes army-slaying too easy. You can become more or less untouchable to an army of low-level soldiers way before level 20. A wizard, of course, can just fly above them and nuke them while their mundane missiles bounce off a dirt-simple Protection from Arrows, but the poor beleaguered warrior-types just cut them down by the dozens while they can only be hit on a natural 20. Getting DR isn't hard either, even if you're a fighter. It should make you a huge deal if the outcome of your throw-down with a whole army isn't a foregone conclusion - 3e's way of resolving it kills the drama like a Finger of Death thrown at a pigeon.

5e will apparently contain some mass-combat rules, although I'm obviously not expecting much in terms of their quality. And from what I remember, they'll basically abstract a large unit of combatants into a single mechanical entity. Which is great - but the mighty warrior facing them will probably still whale at them until their collective hit points run out - it just won't be as easy as it is in 3e. This is because 5e's designers refuse to let go of the combat model that has been in use since OD&D, but that has no future. For a game with such focus on combat, it's dreadfully simplistic and binary.