Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[Shadeydm]

The fighter taking out waves of mooks each round models 0e ( and 1e, IIRC ) perfectly, BTW, and the same goes for some builds of 3.5 ( or, even better, 3.0 ) fighters (Cleave and Great Cleave anyone? A fighter with great cleave can easily mop the floor with a huge number of lower level foes, especially at higher levels).

I've played every edition except chainmail all I can say is what a wave of foes means to you must be quite different from what it means to me. He did not say a wave of foes in a round he said waves of foes in a single round not a statement I can reconcile with prior editions. Again mechanically it might all make sense we don't have the mechanics what we do have is his words. WaveS in a round not wave in a round.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

It's when you enter the endgame (give or take a level depending on the class). It's when you are at name level. It's when you stop rolling for hit points. It's also when the fighters get castles, the thieves get guilds, and the wizards get towers. As class features. Yes a lot of groups abandoned it and it was given up by TSR in 2e before being taken out of the game by WoTC because it wasn't popular. But "By this axe I rule" was (according to old geezer on rpg.net who was at both Gygax's and Arneson's tables) intended to be and actually was the endgame for D&D.

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?

In 1st, 10th is when you start getting given castles and towers and reach name level. At 1st you are trained and bloodied - either as a caster you can cast spells or as a fighter you're actually a veteran who's survived a battle or two. Level names helped.

In other editions it's much more nebulous.

[quoet]AD&D stopped at 10th? News to me.[/quote]

No. It was the endgame. Not the end of the game. The game changed at that point by the rules and by the intent. However not everyone wanted to bother with dominioneering rather than dungeoneering.

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.

Cap the levels for the lower power options? Or just say you can't do it all with one system. I don't mind Arthur and Merlin. What I mind is Arthur and Dr. Strange. Merlin was a Bard and Gandalf only cast like a 4th level druid according to Dragon.

 

[Dausuul]

So...how are they equal if the wizard is incapable of beating the fighter?
If a 20th level fighter can take every spell a 20th level wizard can throw and continue to fight on, it sounds like a 20th level fighter is nigh-unkillable or they are going anti-3.5 and making the fighter (the easiest class and one of the more powerful to play at low levels through most editions) also the most powerful at high end.

The 20th-level wizard can teleport, fly, turn into a snake, create illusions, raise undead, put time on pause, and travel to other planes.

The 20th-level fighter can fight real good.

Therefore, the 20th-level fighter should beat the 20th-level wizard in a fight--if the wizard is fool enough to stick around.

 

[Njall]

I've played every edition except chainmail all I can say is what a wave of foes means to you must be quite different from what it means to me. He did not say a wave of foes in a round he said waves of foes in a single round not a statement I can reconcile with prior editions. Again mechanically it might all make sense we don't have the mechanics what we do have is his words. WaveS in a round not wave in a round.

...How do you quantify a single wave? 5 enemies? 3? 10? What does even "wave" mean in this context?
A high level 3.5 fighter is capable of killing 8-15 enemies each round with cleave ( and without a reach weapon ), for example. Is that a single wave? Multiple waves?
You're not even getting hung up on a term, you're getting hung up on a single letter...

 

[Shadeydm]

...How do you quantify a single wave? 5 enemies? 3? 10? What does even "wave" mean in this context?
A high level 3.5 fighter is capable of killing 8-15 enemies each round with cleave ( and without a reach weapon ), for example. Is that a single wave? Multiple waves?
You're not even getting hung up on a term, you're getting hung up on a single letter...

Yes please tell us what you think he means by a wave then tell us if for example you mention it being 10 tell me how my 1E fighter kills 20-30-40 enemies in a single round? Mine could not...

 

[Njall]

Yes please tell us what you think he means by a wave then tell us if for example you mention it being 10 tell me how my 1E fighter kills 20-30-40 enemies in a single round? Mine could not...

But he's not saying "Wave=10 enemies"! You're assuming it. It could just be hyperbole, or he could just mean "3-5 foes (low level) foes a round", which is perfectly in line with what a fighter could do in just about every other edition of D&D...
And, BTW, a 4e fighter cannot kill 20-40 enemies a round, not even mooks, so I don't really see how " killing waves of enemies per round" equates "4e fighter".

 

[Shadeydm]

But he's not saying "Wave=10 enemies"! You're assuming it. It could just be hyperbole, or he could just mean "3-5 foes (low level) foes a round", which is perfectly in line with what a fighter could do in just about every other edition of D&D...
And, BTW, a 4e fighter cannot kill 20-40 enemies a round, not even mooks, so I don't really see how " killing waves of enemies per round" equates "4e fighter".

No Fighter balanced with Wizard might equate 4E to me depending upon how it is achieved.

 

[GM Dave]

This article raises some fine goals but ultimately i dont think it answers the big question people have: will fighter operate using a powers system like 4e or be more in the classic mold. I support all the points he made, and i think few wiuld disagree except folkswho really need the mage to be the powerhouse at 18th level. But what is going to make or break the game for me is how they achieve these design principles.

To give an exampke. One way to balance out the fighter and make him equal with the wizard as he levels is to do what they did in 4e and give them encuonters, dailies, healing surges, etc. Mechanically this will achievebalance but it doesn't appeal to me. I would rather they do something like give the fighter the consisten ability to dish out more damage than other characters (or at least on average). Maybe in physical cmbat they get a steady damage bonus linked to level. Then give them other abillities that are not keyed to the 4e system. Perhaps the abillity to ignore attacks of opportunity (somewhow tied to level---maybe an increasing penalty for foes opportunity attacks). And dont put these abilities into a feat pool that other characters can access.

Two points to mostly end this discussion.

1> Despite NDAs, I have not heard any talk or seen any glimpses of character sheets that would suggest that the core elements of the game has fighters using Daily, Encounters, etc (and the discussion with the designers in their seminars would suggest that they were planning to stay away from this).

This does not mean they might have something like Essentials where they 'build in' things like stance choices and options to burst damage like the Essential's Fighter.

2> With the playtest less then 4 weeks away, I'm sure that we'll get some reveal on this either before then when they discuss the package they are rolling out. The latest this will likely be answered will be May 24th when we see the first set of characters.

Now, they may have plans to have an option package that brings in the option to replace some elements with more 4e style attack elements and encounter powers but there has been no indications from anyone that has reported doing any sort of playtesting and I think that would have leaked out (not 100% on that but some elements have leaked out already).

 

[Njall]

No Fighter balanced with Wizard might equate 4E to me depending upon how it is achieved.

In 4e, fighters were balanced with wizards in combat first and foremost. He's saying that's not the case in the very first point he makes:
1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting!
However the classes are balanced with each other, that's not the kind of balance that 4e achieved ( which can be a good or bad thing, depending on where you stand ), because 4e balanced them around combat, and Mearls states pretty clearly that it's not the case in 5e...

 

[Janaxstrus]

The 20th-level wizard can teleport, fly, turn into a snake, create illusions, raise undead, put time on pause, and travel to other planes.

The 20th-level fighter can fight real good.

Therefore, the 20th-level fighter should beat the 20th-level wizard in a fight--if the wizard is fool enough to stick around.

So we can assume from this that all of the HOLD spells are out. Because a bad roll would allow the wizard to potentially kill the fighter, no save or die exist anymore, charms are also out, Wish doesn't exist, etc.

So...basically, play a fighter. Yah, no thanks.