Why I'm not worried about Fighter "options"

[Melhaic]

I have never understood why folks act like the fighter (and by extension, other martial characters) are boring if they don't have several mechanically distinct combat abilities. Coming up through AD&D, the idea that it was tedious to make attack rolls just never occurred to us. Spells were spells, backstabs were backstabs, etc. The d20 systems added complexity to the basic formula : describe intent, roll dice, describe outcome. At the end of the day, it was the same thing. I can see how this could be very mundane if presented in purely mechanical terms:

Player: I attack orc A. (Rolls 13to hit)(Rolls 8 damage)
DM: You hit. The orc is hurt.
Player: I make my shield bash (Rolls 20)(10 damage)
DM: Crit! You drop him

You can achieve highly complex and interactive combat simply by putting some narrative effort in:

DM: The orc swings high with his axe, but you are able to deflect it upward with your shield.
Player: Hmm, if his weapon is high... I stab at his lower torso, away from his axe (Rolls 13)(8 damage).
DM: Your sword makes a deep gash near his hip, and he hunkers to cover his wound...
Player: I come at his face with the leading edge of my shield (20, 10 damage).
DM: Your shield catches him directly in the windpipe, with a oddly clear crunching sound; he goes down with bubbling blood pouring down his chin.

Same combat. No powerz needed. The inclusion of hardwired narrative such as forced pushes and (especially) damage on a miss really interfere with player creativity and the ability of the DM to weave an interesting narrative. Why go through all of the trouble to describe combat if the description is hardwired into "Frothing Badger Pounce"?

I don't play the game for fun mechanical wargaming, maybe you do, and that is where the divide is. I play so me and my friends can play make believe about dragons, knights, wizards and such. I don't give a damn if combat power is balanced between classes, or if everybody has something mechanically interesting to do each round (if they are good at the game they will find something regardless): I just want a some ground rules for the make believe.

Because of all of this, I am certain that some part of the D&D community will be deeply disappointed with the upcoming edition, rule modules or no rule modules. I simply don't believe that the more complex (powers based) characters can coexist beside the more simple old school PCs: the narrative would suffer. Do I, as the DM, run combat completely differently for the two players? I think that the community is split on the kind of game it wants in a fundamental way, and not just along the 3e/4e axis: I have played with folks that loved any edition you can name that have the mechanical/wargamey attitude that just doesn't mesh with my much looser disregard for the rules.

So here's hoping for a fast loose game with flat math and fighters who fight with pointy bits of metal, not "Flaming Hyena Smashes". Let's let our imaginations do the heavy lifting, not the combat rules.

 

[SKyOdin]

Because if I wanted pure narrative description of combat without a fun game underlying it I wouldn't be playing D&D. I wouldn't be playing a tabletop rpg at all; I would rather freeform roleplay. That way, I wouldn't be held back by game mechanics, the need for a DM, or genre constraints.

The only thing that D&D brings to the table is the "game" part. Unless that underlying game is fun to play, there is no reason to even play D&D.

Anyways, if you are going the route of "Fighters can just narrate their attacks", why give spellcasters spells? Couldn't we just give spellcasters a generic magic attack, and then have them add narration such as "I blow him up in a fireball", or "I flay his skin off" on a successful hit? By your logic, giving spellcasters discreet spells would also limit player creativity and the ability of a DM to create an interesting narrative.

There is no argument that you can make against fighters having cool powers that isn't also applicable against spellcasting.

Anyways, there is no reason you can't narrate an encounter power that does 2[W] damage in the same way you are choosing to narrate basic attacks.

 

[Melhaic]

Spells to me offer a completely different way to interact with the imagined world: you are using some in game knowledge to achieve a supernatural effect. This is much different than thinking of novel ways to poke someone with a pointy bit of metal. On the flip side, creative use of spells is certainly a valid option. If you have a good idea on how a spell could work that's not in the description, awesome.

As far as something that does 2x damage on a weapon attack: if you know how to make an attack that is twice as lethal, why aren't you doing that every time? That kind of stuff screws verisimilitude for me. I am constantly applying small bonuses/penalties in combat based on the narrative. I think what we are disagreeing on is more fundamental: a set of rules that are the main focus of play, as opposed to an under the hood framework of rules to be discarded or ignored as we see fit. That isn't to say I don't like to have rules, or that they are unneeded. They are the starting point, not the be all and end all.

 

[BobTheNob]

Your right about one thing. There is a divide.

Personally, I dont want fighter to have "powers" (thats where I sit on the divide) but to say fighter are just a toHit+Damage roll is just not enough for my pallet. I do want something more that a fighters to sink there teeth into. Interested to see what they come up with.

Getting over the "interesting" hurdle by telling the players they can inject narrative isnt the solution for me, but Im sure there is a solution out there, somewhere...

 

[Melhaic]

I personally like the PF CMD/CMB system for different combat actions. I also think that the skill system needs to be more tightly integrated into combat. The main point isn't to say that martial characters shouldn't have any special moves, but rather that the system needs to be built around the simple attack/damage, with the other stuff remaining special.

 

[SKyOdin]

Spells to me offer a completely different way to interact with the imagined world: you are using some in game knowledge to achieve a supernatural effect. This is much different than thinking of novel ways to poke someone with a pointy bit of metal. On the flip side, creative use of spells is certainly a valid option. If you have a good idea on how a spell could work that's not in the description, awesome.

And fighter shouldn't have any tools they can use creatively? This is a flat double standard with no logical basis other than a simple desire for spellcasters to be more powerful or fun than fighting classes.

As far as something that does 2x damage on a weapon attack: if you know how to make an attack that is twice as lethal, why aren't you doing that every time? That kind of stuff screws verisimilitude for me.

Have you ever played a fighting game, such as Street Fighter? Well, in those kinds of games, characters often have both weak attacks, which do little damage, and strong attacks, which do much more damage. Why would a character use the weak attack instead of the strong attack? Simple, a weak attack comes out faster and is easier to set-up an attack with, while using the strong attack potentially leaves your character open to counterattack. Similarly, occasionally you find an opening and land a 15-hit combo that takes out a third of your opponent's health in one go.

Real life combat is even more complicated than the degree of abstraction seen in a fighting game. The principle of the difference between weak jabs and strong knock-out blows still remains, however. Furthermore, fighters in real life have to worry about stamina, getting worn out, not performing their best when beaten up, and occasionally getting boosts to their morale and an adrenaline rush.

Creating a game that simulates all of those things would be really complicated. It would take 20 minutes to arbitrate a single attack. So, a game abstracts things. The entire idea of combat powers is to abstract out the complexities of real combat into an easy to use system that gets the overall effect across while being fun to use in play. I think the 3E Tome of Battle maneuvers and 4E Fighter powers accomplish that very well.

I am constantly applying small bonuses/penalties in combat based on the narrative.

Then you are not actually playing D&D as written, and are not really in a position to tell people they should be happy with just making basic attacks. At least suggest a rule system that performs the way you run your game.

I think what we are disagreeing on is more fundamental: a set of rules that are the main focus of play, as opposed to an under the hood framework of rules to be discarded or ignored as we see fit. That isn't to say I don't like to have rules, or that they are unneeded. They are the starting point, not the be all and end all.

The thing is, the kind of gameplay you suggest can be supported by rules. In fact, the upcoming 13th Age game apparently does build in the idea of narrative bonuses to attack rules into its mechanics.

Alternatively, there are plenty of games out there that are designed from the ground up to support that kind of purely narrative/descriptive combat. D&D isn't one of them. It is fine if you think D&D should have more rules to support that kind of gameplay, but it is a poor rationale to make against fighter powers in a game that codifies spells so thoroughly.

 

[Remathilis]

As far as something that does 2x damage on a weapon attack: if you know how to make an attack that is twice as lethal, why aren't you doing that every time?

There are two types of "powers" in my opinions: maneuvers and narrative controls. I abhor the former and like the latter.

A maneuver is some special learned skill that should be re-usable. If I know a maneuver that blocks a sword blow and then trips a dude, I should be able to attempt it again, even if my foe now knows its coming can gets major bonuses to avoiding it. This is poor verisimilitude.

Narrative controls are powers that the character doesn't consciously activate, but the Player does. Luck rolls, re-rolls, story points, extra action surges, even a healing surge can be seen as these. These can represent "cheats" in the system which can account for the dice going south and mitigate these failings. These don't represent my fighter doing something ("I'll stand here and heal for a few seconds") but can represent other factors around him beyond HIS control, but not MINE ("Damn, that wound looked worse than it was!")

An attack that 1/day allows me to do x2 weapon damage, if its the dreaded Sicilian Monkey Slicer Attack, is silly. If it represents that usually once I get lucky and land a blow far worse than it appeared, that's fine.

 

[SKyOdin]

There are two types of "powers" in my opinions: maneuvers and narrative controls. I abhor the former and like the latter.

A maneuver is some special learned skill that should be re-usable. If I know a maneuver that blocks a sword blow and then trips a dude, I should be able to attempt it again, even if my foe now knows its coming can gets major bonuses to avoiding it. This is poor verisimilitude.

Narrative controls are powers that the character doesn't consciously activate, but the Player does. Luck rolls, re-rolls, story points, extra action surges, even a healing surge can be seen as these. These can represent "cheats" in the system which can account for the dice going south and mitigate these failings. These don't represent my fighter doing something ("I'll stand here and heal for a few seconds") but can represent other factors around him beyond HIS control, but not MINE ("Damn, that wound looked worse than it was!")

An attack that 1/day allows me to do x2 weapon damage, if its the dreaded Sicilian Monkey Slicer Attack, is silly. If it represents that usually once I get lucky and land a blow far worse than it appeared, that's fine.

But isn't a maneuver just a different form of narrative control? Why is that then the one form of narrative control that violates your verisimilitude? I don't seen any difference at all between your two defined groups of abilities.

 

[Melhaic]

Have you ever played a fighting game, such as Street Fighter? Well, in those kinds of games, characters often have both weak attacks, which do little damage, and strong attacks, which do much more damage. Why would a character use the weak attack instead of the strong attack? Simple, a weak attack comes out faster and is easier to set-up an attack with, while using the strong attack potentially leaves your character open to counterattack. Similarly, occasionally you find an opening and land a 15-hit combo that takes out a third of your opponent's health in one go.

Real life combat is even more complicated than the degree of abstraction seen in a fighting game. The principle of the difference between weak jabs and strong knock-out blows still remains, however. Furthermore, fighters in real life have to worry about stamina, getting worn out, not performing their best when beaten up, and occasionally getting boosts to their morale and an adrenaline rush.


Did you really go directly from using Street Fighter as a basis for a combat system to talking about real life fighting? Wow. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Either way, things like power attack and expertise model real life much better in my opinion anyway.

 

[SKyOdin]

Did you really go directly from using Street Fighter as a basis for a combat system to talking about real life fighting? Wow. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Either way, things like power attack and expertise model real life much better in my opinion anyway.

Huh? What do you mean by saying "That's exactly what I'm talking about."? I don't follow you.

Anyways, I mentioned Street Fighter because, while it is still a fantastical abstraction of combat, if is both less fantastical and less abstract than D&D, and goes into much greater depth with its combat mechanics than D&D ever will (or should). Also, I am a mild fighting game fan and I was playing some BlazBlue this morning, so it came to mind.

Anyways, Power Attack and Expertise are a pretty poor pair of game mechanics. Sure, they somewhat model what I was talking about, but only poorly. They don't really reflect the moment-to-moment twists and turns in combat very well. They are also mechanically clunky and usually broken either one way or the other. Power Attack is either a really good idea or a very, very bad one, depending entirely on the opponent's AC and contributing nothing to making a fight more dynamic or interesting. Ditto for combat expertise.

When I was playing a Paladin in 3.5E, a couple Paladin spells were a lot more interesting to use when spicing up my attacks than Power Attack and Combat Expertise ever were.