Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[Doug McCrae]

What Mearls is saying... I like it.

If wizards do have extensive supernatural non-combat capabilities, as Bluenose describes, the mundane fighter will never be able to match that (even if he's given a lot more skill points) so it seems the only way to go is to make him significantly better at combat. More damage output (yes, even against multiple targets), better debuffs, better defensive capabilities - hit points, armor, and saves. I like the idea of the fighter as the magic resistance guy, shrugging off finger of deaths and dominates cuz he's so damn tough and strong-willed.

Either you make the fighter magic, and that seems not to be D&DNext's approach, or you nerf the wizard. This would, arguably, be going against many of D&D's traditions, as wizards and other casters have, historically, been the most powerful classes by far.

The question is, how do you nerf the wizard? Take away his superior multi-target damage? Fireball is the single most iconic spell in all of D&D, it's hard to nerf, and yet I think that is probably the best way to go. Leave fighting to the fighter.

 

[Steely_Dan]

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.
​

So, does this mean the paladin and ranger will be limited in weapon effectiveness?

 

[Ratskinner]

So, does this mean the paladin and ranger will be limited in weapon effectiveness?

I dunno. To me, that part of the article just didn't make much sense. My guess is that the answer is "yes", and that the Paladin and Ranger have other divine or woodsy tricks that make up for it.

 

[Ratskinner]

Other side note: In terms of 3e for example, it isn't the fireballs that were the issue, not really. It was the time stopped, delayed blast fireballs that were a problem. It was the (perceived or not) issue of Save or Die. Or the Scry, Teleport and Kill combo. Or the no-save spells. Or the having a spell for anything. Or having just the perfect spell for anything. Or the random extra effects (web at lower levels). And so on, and on and on. Very few objections can really be raised about the fireball because those objections can be easily dealt with - reduce the damage or change how they work very minorly and people have nothing left to argue about. But with the NUMEROUS other objections and issues there are very few recourses. These are the ones that need to be addressed and balanced against (assuming they exist in the new edition - which I hope they do but differently). At higher levels the issue is the flying, invisible wizard throwing out group disable spells.. not fireball.

I totally agree here. The problem in 3e wasn't the Vancian system (not that I'm a fan, mind), it was the spells themselves. In previous editions, spells often had quirky drawbacks that made casting them an actual decision. Far too many spells in 3.x were just pure win (that, and there were far too many spells ). They kept all the good, or cranked it up, and got rid of all the bad.

 

[Ratskinner]

Anyone notice that in 4, monks, rangers, and paladins are mention but not barbarian.

Maybe we are lucky and barbarian is now a theme? Maybe a background?

Personally, I'm in favor of transferring a lot of more "flavor-specific" classes into themes or backgrounds.

 

[tlantl]

The question is, how do you nerf the wizard? Take away his superior multi-target damage? Fireball is the single most iconic spell in all of D&D, it's hard to nerf, and yet I think that is probably the best way to go. Leave fighting to the fighter.

One way I see is to make the wizard's spells dangerous for him to use. Make the fireball do what fireballs do. If he wants to play with fire then things should get burned. Shoot a 60 foot lightning bolt in a 30 foot room it bounces back at you. Summon a demon without the proper protections, the demon eats you first.

A whole lot of spells lost their capacity to make the caster's life suck. If the cost of components, miscasting, side effects, being hit while casting, and bad planning return to the reality of spell casting then a lot of the caster's awesome power is contained.

Honestly reducing or limiting the number of dice a spell does for damage is a pitiful replacement for the hazards of spell casting.

 

[Shadeydm]

If these are the core assumptions of 5E its not clear to me how this is going support all previous edition playstyles. It sounds a little more like 4.5E than I would have thought the stated design goals would allow.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Personally, I'm in favor of transferring a lot of more "flavor-specific" classes into themes or backgrounds.

Me too, but how far to go; I would like the Warlord to be a Theme/Kit/Subclass what-have-you, but many obviously want it to be its own Class.

Like the Monk, I want it it be its own Class (still love the 1st Ed monk, would play it over any class from any edition), but I can see the argument for making it a Theme/Kit/Subclass etc.

 

[Ratskinner]

"Misses" or glosses over? If you define 'fighting' as narrowly as 'hitting enemies with weapons who respond only by hitting you back with weapons,' the fighter could be 'best' at fighting, even by a large margin, while still leaving the wizard plenty of room to be better at solving all problems and overcoming all challenges - including the broader concept of 'combat.'

I don't think that's the point.

The problem is that it seems like all the things you can do to make the Fighter more interesting or better at combat (without just tacking on massive bonuses) approach combat from the "Combat as Sport" direction and plenty of spells have effects that seem to come from the "Combat as War" direction. This, in particular was the problem with 3.x, IMHO. (I haven't played enough 4e to comment on mid or high level play there, other than plenty of people complaining about "status" effects...)

 

[Doug McCrae]

One way I see is to make the wizard's spells dangerous for him to use. Make the fireball do what fireballs do. If he wants to play with fire then things should get burned. Shoot a 60 foot lightning bolt in a 30 foot room it bounces back at you. Summon a demon without the proper protections, the demon eats you first.

A whole lot of spells lost their capacity to make the caster's life suck. If the cost of components, miscasting, side effects, being hit while casting, and bad planning return to the reality of spell casting then a lot of the caster's awesome power is contained.

I agree with most of what you're saying, it's very much the 1e approach. Do you think all spells should be risky to cast, or just a few? Iirc most 1e spells didn't have any drawbacks - magic missile for example. And should this also apply to divine spellcasting? There could be something akin to potion miscibility/wand of wonder/deck of many things randomness with potentially very negative consequences whenever any spell is cast. Or perhaps that would slow the game down too much.

I like the idea of spells being more disruptable in combat. Defensive casting or taking a five foot step backwards was too easy in 3e, imo. Maybe if all casting was a full round action.