Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[keterys]

Oh, sure - it's more in response to someone thinking it's impossible to have mundane compare to magical.

Also - I don't mean "you spend 9 rounds casting meteor swarm" but "you can't cast meteor swarm until the 9th round" - so you're gathering energy during the encounter while casting other spells, unless disrupted / stopped, but you lead in with a magic missile, then a scorching ray, then a fireball... and almost instantly you've solved the big nova and the fighter not getting a chance to act before the wizard solves the fight problems.

Or maybe you can cast 1 spell, but then you're drained and can only do minor magic for a time. Like let's say you've got 1st - 9th level spells, and 9 "mana" that you can use to cast your memorized spells. They go away when you cast them, but you can't offload them all at once. So, you want to meteor swarm in round 1... and you're out of magic for the rest of the fight. Or maybe you get 1 back per round, so you can actually cast fireball 4 rounds in a row til you run out and draw back on magic missiles.

Whatever, there's room to work with, and still meet their other goals.

 

[GM Dave]

I was thinking on the Barbarian Class the other day.

1> If the primitive schtick is going to become a background then that takes a chunk out of the Barbarian class.

2> If the Fighter is the Best Fighter with all weapons then the Barbarian can not be a specialist type of fighter.

3> If the Fighter is the Toughest then the Barbarian can not be the juggernaut that shrugs off wounds that would leave other opponents dead (personally, I think the fighter should leave this schtick for the Barbarian as it has always been the Barbarian's thing to have d12 hit points and gain things like Damage Reduction because they gave up heavy armour).

4> This leaves the Barbarian with Raging and Charging. This is more of a Berserker than a Barbarian (as other posters have noted and does harken back to the roots of DnD). Charging is a loaded gift to the Barbarian as it takes a possible schtick away from the Paladin to represent how they are good on mounts and off of mounts at the fore front of a battle.

Still, Raging while possible to define a class (4e built many attacks with potential follow up attacks triggered by things like criticals and a spike damage mechanic when the Barbarian was 'in a rage'). It seems to be a bit of a thin thing.

5> This led me to think back to 3e and the Power Attack feat. As a feat it was too dominant. It was almost a requirement in any melee feat progression to bump up your damage to keep pace with casters (there are some melee progression feat progressions without it but those are based on 'tricks' and specific sets of feat choices). 4e kept the term Power Attack but it was radically reduced in value.

I think this trade of damage for chance to hit would fit best the Barbarian/Berserker mindset. It gives them a second schtik to build the class on as a constant bonus that they can choose to employ.

The fighter is the best in melee but the Barbarian/Berserker is the crazy warrior that is 'all in' with attacks.

 

[am181d]

Also - I don't mean "you spend 9 rounds casting meteor swarm" but "you can't cast meteor swarm until the 9th round" - so you're gathering energy during the encounter while casting other spells, unless disrupted / stopped, but you lead in with a magic missile, then a scorching ray, then a fireball... and almost instantly you've solved the big nova and the fighter not getting a chance to act before the wizard solves the fight problems.

That's a really cool mechanic. I can see that being fun for players ("You thought that spell was bad-ass? Well see what I've got for you THIS round!") and also for villains ("We REALLY need to kill Vecna this turn, or he's going to start Meteor Swarming us!"). The only downside is it requires you to keep track of how many turns into combat you are. Not difficult (just set out a die), but it's one more thing to manage.

EDITED TO ADD: The other thing it does is it makes it more likely that a combat will end after each successive round, kind of like escalating blinds in poker.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

And the point of that is what? That one of those directions is invalid and must not be allowed?

This, in particular was the problem with 3.x, IMHO.

There were a lot of problematic or broken spells in 3.x, if that's what you're getting at. And casters did get a lot of spells and access to cheap low-level spells in wands and scrolls, undermining the idea that they were balanced by being a limited resource. Am I getting warm at all?

(I haven't played enough 4e to comment on mid or high level play there, other than plenty of people complaining about "status" effects...)

In 4e, all classes can impose some status effects, controllers, like the wizard, have a much higher proportion of spells the inflict, FWIW.

 

[Greg K]

4> This leaves the Barbarian with Raging and Charging. This is more of a Berserker than a Barbarian (as other posters have noted and does harken back to the roots of DnD).

Other than the bererker NPC class from Dragon which could also shapechange, does it harken back to the roots of DND? The 1e Barbarian could not rage. In 2e, I don't recall the Barbarian from the Complete Barbarian's Handbook raging and the berserkere in the Complete Fighter's Handbook was only one of several "barbarian" kits.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Other than the bererker NPC class from Dragom which could also shapechange, does it harken back to the roots of DND? The 1e Barbarian could not rage. In 2e, I don't recall the Barbarian from the Complete Barbarian's Handbook raging and the berserkere in the Complete Fighter's Handbook was only one of several "barbarian" kits.

There was also a Berserker class in the 2nd Ed Vikings Historical Reference book (green, softcover), right?

For the record I would prefer the Barbarian to be a Background (cultural status), then you could have a barbaric party.

 

[Essenti]

That's a really cool mechanic. I can see that being fun for players ("You thought that spell was bad-ass? Well see what I've got for you THIS round!") and also for villains ("We REALLY need to kill Vecna this turn, or he's going to start Meteor Swarming us!"). The only downside is it requires you to keep track of how many turns into combat you are. Not difficult (just set out a die), but it's one more thing to manage.

EDITED TO ADD: The other thing it does is it makes it more likely that a combat will end after each successive round, kind of like escalating blinds in poker.

This is getting a little off topic, but it's still indirectly related to fighter power level...

Maybe if they add casting times back into the killer spells... A wizard devotes a minor or move action to cast fireball for which takes say, three rounds. They can spend their standard action to throw a dagger, an at-will fire lance, or even a magic missile. Maybe blowing an action point will shave off a round. I could see this working, but like someone else mentioned, some folks won't like the wait times.

 

[Ratskinner]

And the point of that is what? That one of those directions is invalid and must not be allowed?

No, not at all. But, if you pick a direction, both classes should follow it. Combat as War basically trumps Combat as Sport. 4e seems to have solved the LFQW problem by turning fighters and wizards (everybody, really) into "Combat as Sport" machines. That's okay, objectively, but a lot folks subjectively felt that was a pronounced deviation from previous D&D. So much so that the next edition is striving to reunite the player base.

Can both classes be made interesting, flavorful, and be "Combat as War" oriented? I dunno, but I think the abstract nature of D&D's combat system makes it harder to hit all three with the Fighter.

There were a lot of problematic or broken spells in 3.x, if that's what you're getting at. And casters did get a lot of spells and access to cheap low-level spells in wands and scrolls, undermining the idea that they were balanced by being a limited resource. Am I getting warm at all?

Partially yes, 3e also did away with a lot of the risk inherent in magic in previous editions. Personally, I never experienced the problems a lot of people cite with Wands of CLW, etc. I dunno, my players just never got into it. ::shrug:: What I did experience, and came to mourn, was the loss of caution. Spells became "all good". To me, that became a big issue with 3e, although not one I recognized right away.

 

[Tony Vargas]

times back into the killer spells... A wizard devotes a minor or move action to cast fireball for which takes say, three rounds. They can spend their standard action to throw a dagger, an at-will fire lance, or even a magic missile. Maybe blowing an action point will shave off a round. I could see this working, but like someone else mentioned, some folks won't like the wait times.

'Warm ups' have been suggested as an alternative to dailies on the WotC boards, too. So has random factors, like crits or beating a DC by a threshold. While those an many other systems might theoretically deliver their peak power, on average, as often as a player-controlled daily (as always, depending on the 'length' of the day), they still don't measure up to the 'plot power' of the daily.

Casting times are classic D&D though, and today's rounds are AD&Ds segments. A third level spell used to take 3 segments (generally), that's the same 18 seconds as 3 rounds today. I doubt wizard fans would see it that way, though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, not at all. But, if you pick a direction, both classes should follow it.

I think part of the point of 5e is not to pick a direction, but to support many diverse styles.

Combat as War basically trumps Combat as Sport.

How so?

I remember the combat as war/sport thread, and I didn't find the implied superiority of one over the other a very compelling idea.

4e seems to have solved the LFQW problem by turning fighters and wizards (everybody, really) into "Combat as Sport" machines.

I'm sorry, but how are all 4e characters 'machines?' I've had a good time RPing a number of character under the system, and never felt I was running a robot. What exactly are you driving at?

That's okay, objectively, but a lot folks subjectively felt that was a pronounced deviation from previous D&D. So much so that the next edition is striving to reunite the player base.

I'm not sure how that applies here, though. The fighter described my Mr. Mearls is very much the classic AD&D fighter. A number of numerical 'Bests' in basic combat ability, no out-of-combat ability even alluded to. Even the more over the top stuff is actually pretty AD&D. Mowing through armies? An AD&D fighter could mow through less than 1 HD enemies, making 1 attack per round /per level/. Standing up to a barrage of spells at high level? Very AD&D: high-level fighters had phenomenal saves across the board. About the only change is that it'll supposedly be less dependent on items. That could just be a side effect of the "compressed math" of 5e - perhaps magic weapons and the like will only come in +1, for instance. Missing out on a +1 because you're mowing through an army with a haunch of moose* instead of a +1 greataxe is not a huge deal.

Can both classes be made interesting, flavorful, and be "Combat as War" oriented? I dunno, but I think the abstract nature of D&D's combat system makes it harder to hit all three with the Fighter.

Well, if you can't hit interesting, flavorful, balanced, /and/ "Combat as War," maybe that says something about "Combat as War" as a litmus test for a game.

Why is it only a problem for the Fighter, though? The fighter is a straightforward enough archetype, and in fiction and legend often does some very remarkable things. Magic is a lot less consistent in genre, most often being very narrative in nature - wizards provide exposition, plot-enablement, and the occasional deus ex machina; evil sorcerers provide fearsome foes that are overcome in profoundly plot-driven narrative ways - all tropes very much at odds with CaW.



* rep to the first one who gets this obscure old-school reference.