Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[Neonchameleon]

As for the Fighter, colour me mostly unimpressed. While I like the idea of the Fighter being tougher (more h.p.) and able to give out melee damage better than most, I'm worried that the ugly head of balance is already being reared, and threatening to devour what otherwise looks like a promising edition.

I'd like to think the examples used - Beowulf, Roland - are to be the game's equivalent of legendary heroes, that PCs can emulate only at the highest levels of the game. If not, the power curve is gonna get completely out of hand...

The problem with that statement is that the classic D&D power curve is already out of hand, and 3.X only made it worse. I'd like to think that Roland was about on a par with Gandalf. And Gandalf was statted at a 4th level D&D druid. If you're going to plough over the classic casters and salt the earth - and only take what then grows then Beowulf and Roland should be the highest levels of the power curve. Otherwise the highest levels should be closer to CuChulain.

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.

In 3e, the limits were removed on what little balance the wizards had. This didn't mean that the casters weren't stronger in earlier editions (Gygax has on the record agreed that the 'overpowered' Unearthed Arcana classes were to try to balance the fighters with the casters). The very daily recharge and variety of spells a wizard can prepare is difficult to balance. Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own. And that goes double when 10th level was the endgame in AD&D - and only the midgame in 3.X

 

[Njall]

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.

How so? 4e started from the basic premise that every class was equally good at fighting... this is a definite break from that paradigm.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I'm really not sure, with the little information we have, how much weight themes and backgrounds can carry. Lately, I've been analyzing this by thinking "How would you break a traditional class down into class, theme, and background in such a way that they are interchangeable with other classes, themes, and backgrounds."

So looking at the "Old" Monk:
Class: Martial Artist - you get some funky combat tricks, perhaps focusing on unarmed combat and movement. (Although maybe this is just the Rogue version of Monk.)
Background: Monk - you get some exploration/lore bonuses, some sneaking (for being quiet), maybe some minor healing/personal magic, maybe an extra language or two (or read languages).
Theme - Ascetic you are limited in the amount and quality of equipment you can have, and loot you can own, however, you get a bunch of "I'm just that good." abilities to more than make up for it.

So, you could take the Ascetic theme and put it with a Fighter to get most of the way towards a Spartan warrior. Tack on a "Soldier" or maybe "Noble" background and your there.

How much, if at all, that reflects 5e design...who knows.

 

[Zireael]

I can not do a proper comparison because I have not played A Song of Ice and Fire with friends yet. I hope that by the end of the month to do it.

It is a low fantasy world.

The system is a roll and keep system using d6. Using an Axe might be Fighting 4d + 2B Axe; where Fighting is the Attribute that represents your general melee skill and 2B Axe represents a further study in using Axes.

A player would roll 6d (4+2) and then choose the best 4 to keep as their total.

The attack roll would then be compared to your opponents defense which is based on 3 attributes/skills (Agility, Athletics, Awareness). A normal person would have a 6 defense (2 is normal making this 2+2+2).

Plate Armour has a -6 modifier to the defense (so even a skilled warrior that might have 3s or 4s in their attributes will have a defense of 6 at most when wearing plate armour making them fairly easy to hit and a commoner is just a walking target for thumping).

A standard Shield gives a +2 while a large Kite shield would give a +4. You can see how this can be important for offsetting the penalty of wearing heavy armour but a mostly naked person using a shield could still benefit.

If you surpass the person's defense then you get to do damage. For every 5 points that you surpass the person's defense the damage done is multiplied.

Damage done is related to the attribute/skill modified by the weapon used. If you have say a knife then the damage is Athletics -2 while a Longsword is Athletics +1 and a Great Sword is Athletics +3. A normal fighter would have Athletics of 3. This gives a range of 1, 4, & 6.

If you were attacking a person with a defense of 10 and you rolled an 11 to hit with a Longsword.

If the person had no armour then you would have beat the target number by 1 and done 4 damage.

If the person had no armour and a shield raising their defense to 12 then you would have missed.

If the person had been wearing plate armour then their defense would have been lowered to 4. You would have thus beaten their total by more than 5 and get to do 4x2 = 8 damage.

Health (HP in the game) is Endurance x3. An average person has 6 Health and warrior will often have no more than 5 x3 = 15 Health.

So, if you had hit the average person for 4 damage with the longsword then they are in bad shape and a regular warrior is down a 1/3 of their health (assuming 12 Health total).

Plate Armour provides 10 AR. This means that in the example where the longsword hit for a bonus total of 8 damage that the armour held and none was transferred on to the warrior inside the suit. If the attacker had used a Great Sword 6x2 = 12 damage then there would be some minor damage to the person inside the armour from the hit.

The weapon list is interesting and colourful. Some weapons will impose a negative bonus die to using them because they are more difficult to learn to use (Flails and Whips are examples). Some weapons do extra effects if you get a couple of raises. Some weapons are described as Vicious (normally if you knock a person to 0 heath then you can choose how wounded you want them to be but vicious weapons automatically send a person to dying). Some weapons can impale a person and there are rules that if you impale someone that you can then stick them to the wall or ground.

It looks like it will be a fun system to play.

Is this about D&D Next or some other system?

 

[Minigiant]

I think Backgrounds and Themes might handle base line adventuring. They will handle your base ability and make you good at combat, exploring, and social interaction.

Class adds the cherry on top.

Fighter gives a bonus to Combat. The Best bonuses actually. For out of combat, you have to look back a background.

Rogue gives bonuses to Exploration and Social and a small bonus to Combat. When you get in a fight, you lean heavy on your Theme for something other than Sneak Attack.

Wizards and Clerics get bonuses based on what spells they prepare. But the combat bonuses of spells, even after a nova of spells, never reach the bonuses of a Fighter.

Background and Theme gives you a 3 (great) in Combat, Exploration, Interaction.

A Fighter is +3 to Combat (6/3/3)
A Rogue is +2 Explore, +1 Combat (4/5/3)
A Cleric is +1 to all (4/4/4)
A Wizard is +2 to their choice
A Paladin is +2 Combat, +1 Social (5/3/4)
A Ranger s +2 Combat, +1 Explore (5/4/3)
A Bard is +3 Social (3/3/6)
etc

 

[Ahnehnois]

Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard.

[Sigh]. Now there's a myth/fantasy/legend.

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.

There's an almost political vibe to these kinds of statements, like they're trying to take some really negative things (powers) but sugarcoat them and state them in a euphemistic way that no one could disagree with.

Sure, I hope we'll see a high-level fighter with diverse and powerful options and excellent defense, but the first mention I see that fighters (or rogues, or barbarians) have anything "per day", I'm done.

Fighters do stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals.
...
The Fighter Is the Toughest Character
...
The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting

Just thought I'd mention the positive as well. At least they're having some thoughts in the right direction.

 

[Steely_Dan]

And that goes double when 10th level was the endgame in AD&D -

10th level is not the endgame in 1st Ed.

 

[underfoot007ct]

I'm more interested in the playtest info. The fighter stuff just confirms what we'd already figured out.

So, from this, we know that the playtest packet due in May isn't really more than a "play this adventure for us." Exactly what I didn't want to hear. So, like before, they're going to let us actually have the rules when it's too late to have input on them?

I believe this is the First public playtest WOTC has done, how are "and no one I sure how long it will run or what exactly is in the PT. How is WOTC ..."So, like before, they're going to let us actually have the rules when it's too late to have input on them?" How many WOTC PTs have you participated in so far ?

Maybe we can stop BASHING the playtest until you have it, & have played it for a week or Two. Rally, the sky is NOT falling.

 

[Bluenose]

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.

What? The assumption that the Fighter is the best at combat, that they're the toughest member of the party, that their skills are mundane, is not a 4e thing. It was true in AD&D and BD&D, so I can't see what your complaint is here.

 

[Ratskinner]

The problem with that statement is that the classic D&D power curve is already out of hand, and 3.X only made it worse. I'd like to think that Roland was about on a par with Gandalf. And Gandalf was statted at a 4th level D&D druid. If you're going to plough over the classic casters and salt the earth - and only take what then grows then Beowulf and Roland should be the highest levels of the power curve. Otherwise the highest levels should be closer to CuChulain.

I think the bigger issue is that the power curve is undefined. That is, the "core" of D&D doesn't make very strong statements about what different levels mean in terms of the narrative assumptions. So what does 20th level mean to D&D? What does 10th or even 1st? Various editions have taken various stances on where you start! How can we expect them to figure out how you should end up?

That's why I'm in favor of cutting back the levels in the "Basic" game. People seem to have a general consensus about that the "low" level game is supposed to look like. Some people want to start as heroes, others as a peasant with a sword/spellbook. I think we've heard that level 1 will be the classic start and that if you want to start heroic, just start at level 3. (I did a similar thing in 3.x and it worked great.) They seem to want themes to run for 6 levels, fine, let the basic game run to 12. That still leaves the heroic groups 9 level-ups before the basic game runs out.

After that, though, there isn't such broad consensus on where things go. Some people want to head towards King Richard, others want to head toward Cu Cuchlain or Hercules. Also, most games seem to die out about there. People want to try different characters etc. So, for the folks who want it, let those groups choose between different high-level modules. Some will throw caster-martial balance out the window, others will have fighters cleaving mountains....whatever, I hardly ever play there. I think it's probably better to leave it to the experts. Play what you want, y'know.

In 3e, the limits were removed on what little balance the wizards had. This didn't mean that the casters weren't stronger in earlier editions (Gygax has on the record agreed that the 'overpowered' Unearthed Arcana classes were to try to balance the fighters with the casters). The very daily recharge and variety of spells a wizard can prepare is difficult to balance. Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own. And that goes double when 10th level was the endgame in AD&D - and only the midgame in 3.X

AD&D stopped at 10th? News to me. Low(er) level AD&D wizards had fewer spell slots and their use was a matter of some contention in most of the groups I was in. (Remember how fighters ruled the lower levels?) IIRC, the list of spells was a lot shorter, too. Nonetheless, as you headed up the spell levels toward Wish, the fundamental power level changed a lot. However, Wish is the perfect example, the DM was encouraged (or at least they all acted like they were) to pick apart almost any wish you could make and use it against you. Part of the motivation behind 3e's changes was that Wizard players rarely got to enjoy the fruits of their suffering at low levels by making it past 10th or so. It turned out to be an over-correction, IMO.

Balance, though, especially across all the levels of 3 and 4 e, is in the eye of the beholder. I don't there's any objective or rational way to argue or determine how the upper reaches of the game should work. Let the people who want to play up there, do it. If you want CuChulain and Väinämöinen to be remaking the world, go for it. However, we should also provide for the folks who want Ned Stark and Grand Maester Pycelle, and for the folks who want Croaker and the Lady, and for the folks who want Arthur and Merlin.