Swordsage: The Complex Fighter

[Sacrosanct]

I want a martial warrior that is more interesting than a beat stick. I want to make tactically interesting choices on a round by round basis.

I want resource management, versatility,

...and utility both in and out of combat.

These are things that are mutally exclusive. There's nothing stopping you from doing the first even with the most basic fighter. After all, players have had interesting fighters, making tactical decisions since day 1 with OD&D and Basic D&D. That's on you as a player to be interesting. For the third quote, that's easily done with the existing skill/background system and ability modifiers, and is related to the first part. I.e., you don't need the "trip" power to attempt to trip a monster. Nor do you need the "wreck it ralph" power to bust down the door. Just tell the DM that's what you want to do and a ruling will be made to the odds.

Now for the second (specifically the bolded part), this is where I think I see where you would need actual rules to support your preference. When you get into actual resource management (which a lot of players like to have), then I agree that giving that ability to non-casters is a good thing, so people who like resource management aren't always stuck with the casters.

 

[Jack the Lad]

These are things that are mutally exclusive. There's nothing stopping you from [making tacticall interesting choices on a round by round basis] even with the most basic fighter. After all, players have had interesting fighters, making tactical decisions since day 1 with OD&D and Basic D&D. That's on you as a player to be interesting.

What are some tactically interesting choices you can make on a round by round basis as a Champion?

[utility both in and out of combat is] easily done with the existing skill/background system and ability modifiers, and is related to the first part. I.e., you don't need the "trip" power to attempt to trip a monster. Nor do you need the "wreck it ralph" power to bust down the door. Just tell the DM that's what you want to do and a ruling will be made to the odds.

I don't know, tripping monsters and breaking down doors seems pretty boring and low-powered to me.

What kinds of things would you suggest a Fighter be able to ask their DM for permission to do at level 17+, when the PHB tells us 'characters achieve the pinnacle of their class features, becoming heroic (or villainous) archetypes in their own right. The fate of the world or even the fundamental order of the multiverse might hang in the balance during their adventures'?

...you know, when without having to ask the DM a Wizard can turn into a dragon in two different ways, stop and rewind time, call meteors down out of the sky, summon extradimensional beings, project his astral body to the Astral Plane, imprison his enemies in labyrinthine demiplanes, control the weather, clone himself, force his enemies to turn on their friends, create telepathic bonds to other creatures, reverse gravity, turn intangible, trap enemies in indestructible cages, teleport anywhere - including to other planes, trap the souls of his enemies in jars and steal their bodies, create portals for others to travel through, conjure up enormous earthworks in moments, see the invisible, move objects with his mind, visit others in their dreams, magically view events thousands of miles away, create passages through castle walls, turn his enemies into toads, turn invisible, retreat to a luxurious extradimensional mansion, instantly create objects that would take a mundane craftsman 10 months to craft, breathe water, fly, raise the dead and bind them to his service, speak every language, walk on walls, read minds, grow or shrink himself, open any door, conjure up illusions, magically charm others, survive falls from any height, assume another appearance, detect magic, sheathe himself in protective forcefields, call up clouds of fog and leap 30 feet in a single bound (leaving out cantrips).

And the Champion, without asking the DM, can swing his weapon, jump 25 feet, get a +3 bonus to his rolls to do things like break down doors and regain a maximum of 10 HP per round.

 

[Sacrosanct]

What are some tactically interesting choices you can make on a round by round basis as a Champion?

Whatever your tactical mind could come up with. Flip the table to gain an AC bonus? Flank your enemy? Grapple your enemy while an ally stabs them? Smash the support beam to cause a cave in on the enemy?

Really, whatever your imagination can come up with. If you think the only things your PC can do are what's explicitly written on your sheet? I feel bad for you when the catch phase of the game you're playing was "Products of Your Imagination" for so long.

I don't know, tripping monsters and breaking down doors seems pretty boring and low-powered to me.

What kinds of things would you suggest a Fighter be able to ask their DM for permission to do at level 17+, when the PHB tells us 'characters achieve the pinnacle of their class features, becoming heroic (or villainous) archetypes in their own right. The fate of the world or even the fundamental order of the multiverse might hang in the balance during their adventures'?

...you know, when without having to ask the DM a Wizard can turn into a dragon in two different ways, stop and rewind time, call meteors down out of the sky, summon extradimensional beings, project his astral body to the Astral Plane, imprison his enemies in labyrinthine demiplanes, control the weather, clone himself, force his enemies to turn on their friends, create telepathic bonds to other creatures, reverse gravity, turn intangible, trap enemies in indestructible cages, teleport anywhere - including to other planes, trap the souls of his enemies in jars and steal their bodies, create portals for others to travel through, conjure up enormous earthworks in moments, see the invisible, move objects with his mind, visit others in their dreams, magically view events thousands of miles away, create passages through castle walls, turn his enemies into toads, turn invisible, retreat to a luxurious extradimensional mansion, instantly create objects that would take a mundane craftsman 10 months to craft, breathe water, fly, raise the dead and bind them to his service, speak every language, walk on walls, read minds, grow or shrink himself, open any door, conjure up illusions, magically charm others, survive falls from any height, assume another appearance, detect magic, sheathe himself in protective forcefields, call up clouds of fog and leap 30 feet in a single bound (leaving out cantrips).

And the Champion, without asking the DM, can swing his weapon, jump 25 feet, get a +3 bonus to his rolls to do things like break down doors and regain a maximum of 10 HP per round.

Hate to break it to you, but everything you just listed are things that are also dependent on DMs as well. Remember, we're not just talking about 5e here. For most of the game's existence, you had to roll to learn a spell. You had to find that spell to begin with (DM fiat), etc. Also, wizards get a lot of those powers in exchange for being extremely squishy and having those powers being limited in many ways (spell slots, etc) while fighters can fight all day long.

Honestly, over the past couple days, I think the biggest issue I have with your posts is that you seem to have this belief that if something exists in the book that a PC has the possibility of doing, that means they can/will do it, and if something isn't written as an explicit ability/power, then the PC can't/won't do it. Those assumptions seem to be the base for most of your arguments.

 

[Jack the Lad]

Flip the table to gain an AC bonus? Flank your enemy? Grapple your enemy while an ally stabs them? Smash the support beam to cause a cave in on the enemy? Really, whatever your imagination can come up with. If you think the only things your PC can do are what's explicitly written on your sheet? I feel bad for you when the catch phase of the game you're playing was "Products of Your Imagination" for so long.

If those are the best and most tactically interesting ideas you can come up with, I'm afraid I feel bad for you. Flipping a table? Really?

How do you feel that measures up against turning into a dragon?

Hate to break it to you, but everything you just listed are things that are also dependent on DMs as well. Remember, we're not just talking about 5e here. For most of the game's existence, you had to roll to learn a spell. You had to find that spell to begin with (DM fiat), etc.

I'm talking about 5e, and so is the thread. Nothing I listed is dependent on the DM in 5e - unlike your ability to flip tables, smash support beams or gain any mechanical advantage by flanking.

Also, wizards get a lot of those powers in exchange for being extremely squishy and having those powers being limited in many ways (spell slots, etc) while fighters can fight all day long.

How can Fighters fight all day long? They take more damage than anyone else and have a limited HP pool - especially if they exist within your worldview, which sees the expectation of short rests as player entitlement.

Honestly, over the past couple days, I think the biggest issue I have with your posts is that you seem to have this belief that if something exists in the book that a PC has the possibility of doing, that means they can/will do it

...yes, if something exists in the book that a PC has the possibility of doing, that means they can do it. In fact, that's exactly what it means.

and if something isn't written as an explicit ability/power, then the PC can't/won't do it. Those assumptions seem to be the base for most of your arguments.

Every class can go outside the rules, and Wizards have better tools with which to do so than Fighters.

I'll ask again, because you didn't answer my question: what are some things a Fighter can do by asking the DM that are comparable to the power a caster wields at level 17+?

 

[Ashkelon]

Whatever your tactical mind could come up with. Flip the table to gain an AC bonus? Flank your enemy? Grapple your enemy while an ally stabs them? Smash the support beam to cause a cave in on the enemy?

Really, whatever your imagination can come up with. If you think the only things your PC can do are what's explicitly written on your sheet? I feel bad for you when the catch phase of the game you're playing was "Products of Your Imagination" for so long.

Here is the biggest problem with your argument. In D&D, the quickest way to victory is to completely disable your opponent by bypassing their HP. The second quickest way to victory is to deal HP damage. While yes, it is true that anyone can improvise, it is also true that 9 times in 10, improvising is a wasted action. Your examples that you gave are perfect examples of wasted actions. You would have simply been better off attacking your enemy.

You are also falling into the trap of thinking that codified abilities inhibits improvisation. I bet you have seen a wizard improvise with their spells. Did their codification inhibit their ability to improvise? You can improvise with your codified abilities. For example, I played a fighter in 4e who had no "powers" that knocked enemies prone, but I would occasionally improvise with my other abilities to trip or knockdown enemies.

Lastly, the point of limited use codified abilities is to put the control in the players hands. Most improvised actions are filled with penalties and additional checks. This makes them extremely unreliable. A wizard can cast thunderwave and know that he can push a Gargantuan sized monster 10 ft. A fighter can improvise a shield bash to push a large sized creature only, and even then the DM might make him take disadvantage on the attack and require a contest of Strength if he hits. On top of that, the majority of the maneuvers I gave to the swordsage are abilities that cannot be replicated through improvisation. Go read through them and see what kinds of abilities they are.

Also, I think this will help you see where people like me are coming from. This is what mike mearls told us the fighter would be like in April of 2012. I feel he failed miserably at achieving these design goals./

Fighter Design Goals
The fighter is one of my favorite classes, so I’m a little biased. I also think it is a class that has always suffered a bit compared to the spellcasters in the game. Fighters represent the most iconic fantasy heroes, and it is perhaps the most popular class in the game. Therefore, it’s important that we get the fighter right.
You can take a look at last week’s article to get a sense of our general approach to the classes. Here are the main points we’re looking at for the fighter.

1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting!
This might sound like an obvious point, but the fighter should be the best character in a fight. Other classes might have nifty tricks, powerful spells, and other abilities, but when it’s time to put down a monster without dying in the process, the fighter should be our best class. A magic sword might make you better in a fight, but a fighter of the same level is still strictly better. Perhaps a spell such as haste lets you attack more often, but the fighter is still either making more attacks or his or her attacks are more accurate or powerful.

2. The Fighter Draws on Training and Experience, not Magic
Fighters master mundane tactics and weapon skills. They don’t need spells or some sort of external source of magical power to succeed. Fighters do stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals. They don’t reverse gravity or shoot beams of energy.

3. The Fighter Exists in a World of Myth, Fantasy, and Legend
Keeping in mind the point above, we also have to remember that while the fighter draws on mundane talent, we’re talking about mundane within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle. In the world of D&D, a skilled fighter is a one-person army. You can expect fighters to do fairly mundane things with weapons, but with such overwhelming skill that none can hope to stand against them.

4. The Fighter Is Versatile
The fighter is skilled with all weapons. The best archer, jouster, and swordmaster in the realm are all fighters. A monk can match a fighter’s skill when it comes to unarmed combat, and rangers and paladins are near a fighter’s skill level, but the fighter is typically in a class by itself regardless of weapon.

5. The Fighter Is the Toughest Character
The fighter gets the most hit points and is the most resilient character. A fighter’s skill extends to defense, allowing the class to wear the heaviest armor and use the best shields. The fighter’s many hit points and high AC renders many monsters’ attacks powerless.

6. A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal
Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard. It’s all too easy for combinations of spells to make the wizard a far more potent enemy or character, especially if a wizard can unleash his or her spells in rapid succession. A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round. Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter, and attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend. 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

 

[Sacrosanct]

If those are the best and most tactically interesting ideas you can come up with, I'm afraid I feel bad for you. Flipping a table? Really?

How do you feel that measures up against turning into a dragon?

Pretty darn well if the times you can turn into a dragon comes up pretty much never in actual game play. I said this in the other thread and it still holds true. If something never, or hardly ever, can happen in a typical game session, then you can't present an argument the relies on that happening whenever you want.

How can Fighters fight all day long? They take more damage than anyone else and have a limited HP pool - especially if they exist within your worldview, which sees the expectation of short rests as player entitlement.

Apples and oranges. A fighter might not ever run out of HP, but after a caster casts a spell, that slot is lost until it can be regained. I.e., a caster with 4/3/3 spell slots will run out of spells after they cast 10 of them. A fighter doesn't run out of attacks.

...yes, if something exists in the book that a PC has the possibility of doing, that means they can do it. In fact, that's exactly what it means.

But you're assuming they will do it. All the time in fact. This is what you keep missing. You gave a huge list of all the various spells. Guess what? In actual play? A wizard is not going to have all of those spells. Either due to-
-not having enough slots
-not having learned it
-not having prepped it

There is no way a wizard can cast all of those spells you listed in actual play. Therefore, your entire argument is flawed from the get go.

I'll ask again, because you didn't answer my question: what are some things a Fighter can do by asking the DM that are comparable to the power a caster wields at level 17+?

Firstly, as illustrated by the (how many people played to level 20 thread), who cares? If hardly anyone gets to that level it's irrelevant in actual play. Secondly, you're gonna play 17 levels just to say, "haha! Now you suck compared to me!!!" Really? And thirdly, the fighter never was designed to be as powerful as the caster in one shot limited abilities. Pay close attention to that last part. Casters can out do a fighter in very limited number of occurrences, while the fighter can keep doing what he does all day long. If you can inflict twice as much damage as a fighter for 10 rounds of combat, and he does twice as much damage as you for the other 30-40 rounds before you can take a long rest, that is very relevant to the discussion.

Here is the biggest problem with your argument. In D&D, the quickest way to victory is to completely disable your opponent by bypassing their HP. The second quickest way to victory is to deal HP damage. While yes, it is true that anyone can improvise, it is also true that 9 times in 10, improvising is a wasted action. Your examples that you gave are perfect examples of wasted actions. You would have simply been better off attacking your enemy.

Are they? Think of the bigger picture. A +2 AC to you and your allies may prevent you from getting damaged at all. Bringing down the tunnel may either incapacitate more than one enemy at once, or prevent them from getting to you in the first place. Once you start thinking outside of the box and beyond just DPR, you'll find the game opening up for you.

This is the problem I have with "more HP damage is always better" argument, and why it's not always true. I presented this argument way back when it first came up and bears repeating here.

If you (inflicting 5 points average with 20 hp) are fighting an orc (inflicting 5 points average and has 20 hp), and you always go first, you will kill the orc in 4 rounds taking 15 points yourself. If you increase your average damage by 3 points, you still take 3 rounds to kill it and take 10 points yourself (3 attacks to its 2). However, if you reduce the amount of damage on average you take by 3 points (say the hit% goes down due to better AC), then after 4 rounds, you kill it and you take 6 points (since it's only inflicting 2 points per round, for 3 attacks). In the second scenario, you didn't kill it any faster than you would have if you chose to do more damage, but by the end of the battle you lost less HP.

So unless you allow full recovery after every battle, always doing more damage is not always best.

 

[Libramarian]

This class looks like it would be cool at first and then tedious as it slows down combat.

Remember that the casters are complex classes, but only some of the time. They need to conserve their daily resources so during attritional "trash" combats they're actually low complexity. A class with use-it-or-lose-it encounter powers like this is high complexity all the time, which messes with the adventure rhythm of low complexity trash to high complexity boss battles.

This looks like it would fit in better with a game where PCs are expected to have 1-3 encounters per day. In 5e PCs are expected to have 6-8 encounters per day. A class that is high complexity in every battle would be unbalanced.

 

[Ashkelon]

This class looks like it would be cool at first and then tedious as it slows down combat.

Remember that the casters are complex classes, but only some of the time. They need to conserve their daily resources so during attritional "trash" combats they're actually low complexity. A class with use-it-or-lose-it encounter powers like this is high complexity all the time, which messes with the adventure rhythm of low complexity trash to high complexity boss battles.

This looks like it would fit in better with a game where PCs are expected to have 1-3 encounters per day. In 5e PCs are expected to have 6-8 encounters per day. A class that is high complexity in every battle would be unbalanced.

What about the class looks especially complex to you? I will try to simplify anything that is overly complex.

Honestly, I thought this class was far more simple than the battlemaster and orders of magnitude more simple than the warlock (which is one of the most simple spellcasting classes there is).

 

[Jack the Lad]

Pretty darn well if the times you can turn into a dragon comes up pretty much never in actual game play. I said this in the other thread and it still holds true. If something never, or hardly ever, can happen in a typical game session, then you can't present an argument the relies on that happening whenever you want.

Why would it never happen? What's preventing it from happening?

Apples and oranges. A fighter might not ever run out of HP, but after a caster casts a spell, that slot is lost until it can be regained. I.e., a caster with 4/3/3 spell slots will run out of spells after they cast 10 of them. A fighter doesn't run out of attacks.

A caster might not ever run out of spells, but when a fighter takes damage, that HP is lost until it can be regained.

But you're assuming they will do it. All the time in fact. This is what you keep missing. You gave a huge list of all the various spells. Guess what? In actual play? A wizard is not going to have all of those spells. Either due to-
-not having enough slots
-not having learned it
-not having prepped it

There is no way a wizard can cast all of those spells you listed in actual play. Therefore, your entire argument is flawed from the get go.

I was wondering when you'd trot out this nonsense again!

Count the spells I listed. There are 44; as many as a Wizard - with a GM who does not let them find or buy even a single additional spell in the course of their adventures - knows at level 20.

I've put them in reverse level order. If you want to see what they can do at lower levels, take 2 off the list for each level below 20.

Firstly, as illustrated by the (how many people played to level 20 thread), who cares? If hardly anyone gets to that level it's irrelevant in actual play. Secondly, you're gonna play 17 levels just to say, "haha! Now you suck compared to me!!!" Really? And thirdly, the fighter never was designed to be as powerful as the caster in one shot limited abilities. Pay close attention to that last part. Casters can out do a fighter in very limited number of occurrences, while the fighter can keep doing what he does all day long. If you can inflict twice as much damage as a fighter for 10 rounds of combat, and he does twice as much damage as you for the other 30-40 rounds before you can take a long rest, that is very relevant to the discussion.

Level 17+ is a whole tier of play - one of the four tiers of play outlined on page 15 of the PHB.

Up until what level are you claiming the Fighter is on par with the Wizard?

Are they? Think of the bigger picture. A +2 AC to you and your allies may prevent you from getting damaged at all. Bringing down the tunnel may either incapacitate more than one enemy at once, or prevent them from getting to you in the first place. Once you start thinking outside of the box and beyond just DPR, you'll find the game opening up for you.

This is the problem I have with "more HP damage is always better" argument, and why it's not always true. I presented this argument way back when it first came up and bears repeating here.

If you (inflicting 5 points average with 20 hp) are fighting an orc (inflicting 5 points average and has 20 hp), and you always go first, you will kill the orc in 4 rounds taking 15 points yourself. If you increase your average damage by 3 points, you still take 3 rounds to kill it and take 10 points yourself (3 attacks to its 2). However, if you reduce the amount of damage on average you take by 3 points (say the hit% goes down due to better AC), then after 4 rounds, you kill it and you take 6 points (since it's only inflicting 2 points per round, for 3 attacks). In the second scenario, you didn't kill it any faster than you would have if you chose to do more damage, but by the end of the battle you lost less HP.

So unless you allow full recovery after every battle, always doing more damage is not always best.

Or the orc walks around the table you flipped, negating the AC bonus, and you wasted an action and take 5 extra damage.

Or, if we look at a situation that could arise in actual play instead of plucking numbers out of thin air...

With 20HP you're probably level 2 with a +2 Con bonus. You're dealing an average of 7.8 per swing with your maul - enough to kill an orc in 2 attacks.

The orc deals an average of 5.1 per swing to you. Or, if you flip a table and gain +2 AC and the orc doesn't simply walk around it, 4.1 damage.

Let's look at that in a bit more detail.

You win initiative and flip the table.
The orc doesn't walk around it and instead just takes a swing. 4.1 damage.
You attack the orc. 7.8 damage.
The orc takes a swing. 4.1 damage.
You attack the orc and kill it.

= 8.2 damage taken, 2 hits.

You win initiative and attack the orc. 7.8 damage.
The orc takes a swing. 5.1 damage.
You attack the orc and kill it.

= 5.1 damage taken, 1 hit.

So yeah, your example is just yet another illustration of ~using your imagination~ being functionally worse than endlessly swinging your weapon - even if we make the orc completely braindead and say you're the only one who gains a benefit from being attacked across a table.

If the orc also gains +2 AC from being attacked across a table, your average damage drops to 6.6 per swing and it takes you 3 attacks on average to kill it.

This means you take 3 hits for a total of 12.3 damage vs 1 hit for 5.1 damage.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Why would it never happen? What's preventing it from happening?

Oh, I don't know. How about all the things I keep mentioning. Like available spells slots. Or available prep slots.

Tell you what Jack. Show me the 10th level caster that has all of those spells prepped. Again, it doesn't matter if they have that spell in a spellbook. They have to be able to cast the spell in order for your argument to work. So show me how a 10th (average level ) caster has prepped that list of spells you have above.

A caster might not ever run out of spells, but when a fighter takes damage, that HP is lost until it can be regained.

The same thing can be said of a caster. Heck, the caster probably has less HP. Apples and oranges. A fighter won't run out of attacks. A caster will run out of spells. If you're going to assume the fighter will lose HP each round, you have to apply the same standards to a caster as well or your entire argument is disingenuous.

I was wondering when you'd trot out this nonsense again!

Count the spells I listed. There are 44; as many as a Wizard - with a GM who does not let them find or buy even a single additional spell in the course of their adventures - knows at level 20.

I've put them in reverse level order. If you want to see what they can do at lower levels, take 2 off the list for each level below 20.

And there are 30 first level spells alone. There is no way a caster will have access to every spell unless you give them every spell as a DM. And even then, as you keep ignoring, having a spell in your spellbook is completely different than having it prepped, let alone having the slot to cast it. This is not nonsense. This is "in game" rules that very much matter.

Level 17+ is a whole tier of play - one of the four tiers of play outlined on page 15 of the PHB.

Yep, and as was shown in that other thread, hardly anyone plays at that tier. And more importantly, just one of three reasons I gave (probably the least impactful as well)

Up until what level are you claiming the Fighter is on par with the Wizard?

overall? Every level. Cherry picking one particular round where the caster has access to any spell he wants without the context of an entire adventuring day? The wizard of course. But since that doesn't happen in most people's games (white room), I find it entirely irrelevant theorycrafting.

Or the orc walks around the table you flipped, negating the AC bonus, and you wasted an action and take 5 extra damage.

Or, if we look at a situation that could arise in actual play instead of plucking numbers out of thin air...

With 20HP you're probably level 2 with a +2 Con bonus. You're dealing an average of 7.8 per swing with your maul - enough to kill an orc in 2 attacks.

The orc deals an average of 5.1 per swing to you. Or, if you flip a table and gain +2 AC and the orc doesn't simply walk around it, 4.1 damage.

Let's look at that in a bit more detail.

You win initiative and flip the table.
The orc doesn't walk around it and instead just takes a swing. 4.1 damage.
You attack the orc. 7.8 damage.
The orc takes a swing. 4.1 damage.
You attack the orc and kill it.

= 8.2 damage taken, 2 hits.

You win initiative and attack the orc. 7.8 damage.
The orc takes a swing. 4.1 damage.
You attack the orc and kill it.

= 4.1 damage taken, 1 hit.

So yeah, your example is just yet another illustration of ~using your imagination~ being functionally worse than endlessly swinging your weapon - even if we make the orc completely braindead.

Holy....once again you're missing the entire point. The numbers I used is not relevant to the overall point, but were just an example to illustrate the point. If you can end a combat encounter, even if it takes longer, with less resources spent (like HP), then it is better than just going "more damage is always better", unless you allow a complete recovery of all resources after every encounter. And who plays like that? Certainly not most players.