The first example I think of is Conan killing Thugra Khotan in Black Colossus.
Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
Doug McCrae
Legend
I thought combat-as-war meant caster abilities are open-ended, constrained only by the broadest possible interpretation of a paragraph or two of equivocal text. Non-casters otoh are constrained by our considerable real world knowledge regarding the capabilities of muscle and metal.
Under combat-as-war, the reversed version of the 1st level cleric spell, create water - destroy water - can slay a humanoid, because the human body is comprised of 60% water.
Under combat-as-war, the reversed version of the 1st level cleric spell, create water - destroy water - can slay a humanoid, because the human body is comprised of 60% water.
Last edited:
I have a few complaints with Mike Mearl's approach to the fighter and I will list them below. Please let me know what you think in regards to them.
1) The fighter is the "best" at combat. I do not think that is fair to the other fighter "sub-classes" such as paladin, ranger and barbarian. Shoudl the fighter be better at fighting
1) The fighter is the "best" at combat. I do not think that is fair to the other fighter "sub-classes" such as paladin, ranger and barbarian. Shoudl the fighter be better at fighting
ArmoredSaint
First Post
As others have said, it will be fine if those other classes are just themes/backgrounds of the Fighter class.
Additionally, those other classes have other areas in which they have the opportunity to shine, while the Fighter focuses on combat. Fighting should be owned by the Fighter.
Libramarian
Adventurer
D&D characters are NOT protagonists. This is a pernicious idea I think. It creates way too much player entitlement for D&D.
Oni
First Post
I think this is the real problem right here, the fighter is too hyper-focused on combat. It shouldn't be that the fighter has to shine so much brighter in combat because he sucks at everything else, it should be that he's good at the sorts of things a fighting-man, a warrior, a knight, a soldier, et c. can do. I personally don't want to go back to the situation where my Fighter is incompetent at horsemanship, climbing, swimming, athletics, intimidating folks, reading a battlefield, negotiating a surrender, surviving on his own, repairing his kit, field dressing wounds, being aware of his environment, slipping past enemy patrols, et c., because he's just a combat class and doesn't have any skills 'cause that wouldn't be balanced. Make fighters competent at the sorts of things a well trained soldier might be able to do and quit worrying about stepping on the skill classes and you might get somewhere.
If fighting is 'owned' by the Fighter Class then does this mean that the other Fighter options will be superior with the other 'pillars' as compensation?
Does this mean that if I choose the Fighter Class then I am choosing to not be capable of leading troops (Roleplaying/Social) and unable to navigate a ship (Exploration)?
I'll allow the idea of Fighter as master of combat but then they need to be sub-par in the other pillars to compensate.
Paladins and Warlords need to get better Roleplaying/Social then Fighters. Rangers and Barbarians/Berserkers need to get better Exploration then Fighters.
If the Fighter is to be the King of Battle then it should be as a solo act with no 2nd act.
From Tom Moldvay's Foreword to the Basic Rulebook (page B2, and dated 3 December 1980):
From the Introduction to the same book (page B3):
From the Introduction to Gary Gygax's Player's Handbook (p 7):
Under the heading "The Game" in the same book (p 7):
Moldvay's Foreword is the most evocative of these passages, but all seem to me to very strongly imply that the PCs are protagonists in a fantasy adventure. The PCs venture out on dangerous quests in search of fame and fortune, striding through the world created by the GM (Gygax's description of this is reminisicent of Conan as described in the Nemedian Chronicles), exploring that world and facing all of its challenges.
Moldvay's Foreword also seems quite pertinent to this thread, as it shows the fighter and the cleric in their traditional literary relationship - the fighter as protagonist, the magician/sage a mysterious background figure (or, to put it more bluntly, a plot device).
I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave. . .
I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shoulted my battle cry and charged.
My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut just inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero.
I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shoulted my battle cry and charged.
My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut just inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero.
From the Introduction to the same book (page B3):
In the D&D rules, individuals play the role of characters in a fantasy world wher magic is real and heroes venture out on dangerous quests in search of fame and fortune.
From the Introduction to Gary Gygax's Player's Handbook (p 7):
ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a world. Of course, this world is not complete. It needs organizers and adventurers to order and explore it. It neds you! . . . Into this world of weird monsters, strange peoples, multitudinous states, and fabulous treasures of precious items and powerful magic stride fearless adventurers - you and your fellow players.
Under the heading "The Game" in the same book (p 7):
[O]ne player must serve as the Dungeon Master, the shaper of the fantasy milieu, the "world" in which all action will take place. The other participants become adventurers by creating characters to explore the fantastic world and face all of its challenges - monsters, magic, and unamed menaces.
Moldvay's Foreword is the most evocative of these passages, but all seem to me to very strongly imply that the PCs are protagonists in a fantasy adventure. The PCs venture out on dangerous quests in search of fame and fortune, striding through the world created by the GM (Gygax's description of this is reminisicent of Conan as described in the Nemedian Chronicles), exploring that world and facing all of its challenges.
Moldvay's Foreword also seems quite pertinent to this thread, as it shows the fighter and the cleric in their traditional literary relationship - the fighter as protagonist, the magician/sage a mysterious background figure (or, to put it more bluntly, a plot device).
Doug McCrae
Legend
But this is what the marketing has sold us. This is from an advert for Basic D&D in White Dwarf #53, 1984, emphasis mine -
If you have ever read a book or seen a film and thought "I wouldn't do that!" when the hero does something stupid, then role-playing games are for you. Imagine a story where you can make the decisions and change the outcome, a story where you are the hero or heroine...
EDIT: The other issue is that 'rpg as story' is a perfectly valid playstyle (or, I should say, playstyles), which many rpg-ers prefer. It's been around since almost the very beginning, is acknowledged in White Dwarf and Dragon articles in the late 70s, and fully adopted by TSR with Dragonlance in the early 80s.
Last edited:
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Disclaimer: I'm just expressing my view, and how I experience things; this post is entirely biased, and I readily admit that others will experience things contrary to what I say, and thus nothing I write here should be taken as a declaration of universal truth or theoretically superior take on how to play the game.
I really dislike the idea of the PCs as protagonists being the assumption. If it is assumed, you get PC/NPC disparity (what my players and I might call "inconsistencies") within the mechanics. I dislike the idea that the mechanics address PCs and NPCs differently. This is obviously not universally shared in game design, but it's definitely my take on it.
I'd like consistent rules between PCs and NPCs. And not "consistent rules for PCs" and "consistent rules for NPCs", but truly consistent rules for both. I want the rules to do this to aid in clarity for everyone involved. That is, the players know if something is possible/impossible, and it gives them a frame of reference for what they can expect within the fiction of the game world, providing less reason to be pulled out of immersion.
I also dislike mechanics that aim for any "cinematic" feel, or any mechanic that follows the so-called "rule of cool." While I understand these mechanics, they do nothing for me. They do not make me feel awesome. They might produce neat or cool scenes, sure. I will probably derive enjoyment from them, though odds are it'll lessen with time and frequency (such is the way of many things, I suppose).
That's why I prefer a certain amount of randomness to determine when things are "cinematic" or not. It also aids in tension. For example, critical hits (with a damage multiplier) serve this goal well. When you can't rely on the ability, the tension builds, creating a greater enjoyment payoff when the effect works or appears. If a PC is down, one is sent running, and you're the last guy between the orc warchief and the sage PC, getting that critical hit and downing the bad guy is pretty epic.
Now, if I can "I get a critical hit" now (some PrC from 3.X, daily's from 4e, etc.), it still feels cool. There was tension, and I won the day with my ability. I feel good. It's enjoyable. It's just not as epic. I've described the scene that happened relatively recently where a regenerating PC smeared some "essence of death" (remains from an avatar of death) on his right hand, on the off chance he could get the dragon they were about to provoke to bite his hand. The opportunity never came up, but the dragon bit him, and I rolled (openly, at that) and, to our amazement, the "hit" landed on his right arm, biting off his hand at the elbow. The dragon took damage, of course, but the hit was completely random, and only had a 1 in 100 chance of landing on that hand. That was awesome. Using an ability that said "and now he bites my right hand" would be cool, and would be enjoyable. It wouldn't be near what the randomness made it, though.
I want that level of awesome. I want randomness, and tension. I don't want to dictate when and how the scene plays out, all things being equal on both sides. I want to see what happens this time. I want to see if the PCs really do survive this fight, or if the bad guy goes down to a lucky hit, or if the PCs get interrupted during their travels by a merchant, wayward prince, or group of friendly bandits.
The PCs being assumed to be the protagonists (with the game being designed with that in mind) can produce a lot of enjoyable scenes. If, however, the PCs are assumed to be characters in a story, with no great plot protection, then I'd say that they can be given tools that might elevate them to that level. However, I want time to inform me if that's the case, not the mechanics. I want to see if the character lives to the end of the series, not assume he does. That randomness and lack of strong plot protection is key for me to immerse, to feel involved, and to feel that level of awesome.
Say what you will of 3.5 or 4e's death and dying mechanics, the "you need to roll to avoid dying" brings on the tension. I've had those "you need to make this to live" (1 in 10 in 3.5) pop up quite a few times, and the players get this look of such excitement when they make it. You don't get that excitement from "I use my Fate Point to stabilize." There's no tension. You get the same narrative, but you don't get the same enjoyment.
But that's just me. My game preferences aren't going to fit many people. Most people, probably. That's fine. That's the beauty of the game. If 5e really does pursue the "you're the protagonists in a story of heroic fantasy!" style of presentation (with attached mechanics), I hope they're something easy to discard (like Fate Points). That way, everyone wins. I don't much care what the assumption is, as long as you can peel away the plot protection pretty easily. Some people would rather play Eddard Stark than Rand al'Thor. As always, play what you like
I really dislike the idea of the PCs as protagonists being the assumption. If it is assumed, you get PC/NPC disparity (what my players and I might call "inconsistencies") within the mechanics. I dislike the idea that the mechanics address PCs and NPCs differently. This is obviously not universally shared in game design, but it's definitely my take on it.
I'd like consistent rules between PCs and NPCs. And not "consistent rules for PCs" and "consistent rules for NPCs", but truly consistent rules for both. I want the rules to do this to aid in clarity for everyone involved. That is, the players know if something is possible/impossible, and it gives them a frame of reference for what they can expect within the fiction of the game world, providing less reason to be pulled out of immersion.
I also dislike mechanics that aim for any "cinematic" feel, or any mechanic that follows the so-called "rule of cool." While I understand these mechanics, they do nothing for me. They do not make me feel awesome. They might produce neat or cool scenes, sure. I will probably derive enjoyment from them, though odds are it'll lessen with time and frequency (such is the way of many things, I suppose).
That's why I prefer a certain amount of randomness to determine when things are "cinematic" or not. It also aids in tension. For example, critical hits (with a damage multiplier) serve this goal well. When you can't rely on the ability, the tension builds, creating a greater enjoyment payoff when the effect works or appears. If a PC is down, one is sent running, and you're the last guy between the orc warchief and the sage PC, getting that critical hit and downing the bad guy is pretty epic.
Now, if I can "I get a critical hit" now (some PrC from 3.X, daily's from 4e, etc.), it still feels cool. There was tension, and I won the day with my ability. I feel good. It's enjoyable. It's just not as epic. I've described the scene that happened relatively recently where a regenerating PC smeared some "essence of death" (remains from an avatar of death) on his right hand, on the off chance he could get the dragon they were about to provoke to bite his hand. The opportunity never came up, but the dragon bit him, and I rolled (openly, at that) and, to our amazement, the "hit" landed on his right arm, biting off his hand at the elbow. The dragon took damage, of course, but the hit was completely random, and only had a 1 in 100 chance of landing on that hand. That was awesome. Using an ability that said "and now he bites my right hand" would be cool, and would be enjoyable. It wouldn't be near what the randomness made it, though.
I want that level of awesome. I want randomness, and tension. I don't want to dictate when and how the scene plays out, all things being equal on both sides. I want to see what happens this time. I want to see if the PCs really do survive this fight, or if the bad guy goes down to a lucky hit, or if the PCs get interrupted during their travels by a merchant, wayward prince, or group of friendly bandits.
The PCs being assumed to be the protagonists (with the game being designed with that in mind) can produce a lot of enjoyable scenes. If, however, the PCs are assumed to be characters in a story, with no great plot protection, then I'd say that they can be given tools that might elevate them to that level. However, I want time to inform me if that's the case, not the mechanics. I want to see if the character lives to the end of the series, not assume he does. That randomness and lack of strong plot protection is key for me to immerse, to feel involved, and to feel that level of awesome.
Say what you will of 3.5 or 4e's death and dying mechanics, the "you need to roll to avoid dying" brings on the tension. I've had those "you need to make this to live" (1 in 10 in 3.5) pop up quite a few times, and the players get this look of such excitement when they make it. You don't get that excitement from "I use my Fate Point to stabilize." There's no tension. You get the same narrative, but you don't get the same enjoyment.
But that's just me. My game preferences aren't going to fit many people. Most people, probably. That's fine. That's the beauty of the game. If 5e really does pursue the "you're the protagonists in a story of heroic fantasy!" style of presentation (with attached mechanics), I hope they're something easy to discard (like Fate Points). That way, everyone wins. I don't much care what the assumption is, as long as you can peel away the plot protection pretty easily. Some people would rather play Eddard Stark than Rand al'Thor. As always, play what you like
