Complex fighter pitfalls

[Campbell]

That's about as fair as saying...

-Fighter: I use an At-will power
-Paladin: I use an At-will power
-Rogue: I use an At-will power
-Wizard: I use an At-will power
-Ranger: I use an At-will power
-Warlord: I use an At-will power
-Warlock: I use an At-will power
-Cleric: I use an At-will power
-Barbarian: I use an At-will power
-Avenger: I use an At-will power
-Shaman: I use an At-will power
-Druid: I use an At-will power

Though in all honesty I have seen the first round of a 4e fight go like this on more than one occasion...

I don't actually see 4e as the holy grail here. My preference is for more varied resource systems. I can live with a relatively at will fighter, but playing a paladin should feel dramatically different from playing a fighter or a cleric. Having clerics with domain based spell access cast spells slightly different from wizards is a good start. I see a lot of room for experimentation with ancillary classes like Barbarians, Assassins, Monks, etc. Honestly one of the things that I like most about MRQ/Legend is how different the various magic systems are from one another. I think D&D could learn a thing or two.

 

[Imaro]

I don't actually see 4e as the holy grail here. My preference is for more varied resource systems. I can live with a relatively at will fighter, but playing a paladin should feel dramatically different from playing a fighter or a cleric. Having clerics with domain based spell access cast spells slightly different from wizards is a good start. I see a lot of room for experimentation with ancillary classes like Barbarians, Assassins, Monks, etc. Honestly one of the things that I like most about MRQ/Legend is how different the various magic systems are from one another. I think D&D could learn a thing or two.

Oh, I agree that D&D could improve and I also think Legend is a system that makes combat interesting without forcing mythic fighters onto those who want a gritier/ more sword and sorcery martial hero... That said, then why direct the snark at a specific edition as opposed to D&D as a whole?

 

[Campbell]

Oh, I agree that D&D could improve and I also think Legend is a system that makes combat interesting without forcing mythic fighters onto those who want a gritier/ more sword and sorcery martial hero... That said, then why direct the snark at a specific edition as opposed to D&D as a whole?

It did come off as overly snarky. For that I apologize. The point I was trying to make was that 4e doesn't have the market cornered on homogeneity of resource systems. That being said I do think that the effect portion or damage + effect matters. For the most part I find 4e to be an engaging game, but would like shorter combat. Not AD&D short, but not 3e/4e long. I probably pick on 3e because it has long/uninteresting fights (at least on the fighter's side of the equation) and embraces flawed process for simulation mechanics (similar to the proposed "narrative" combat module for 5e).

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's about as fair as saying...

-Fighter: I use an At-will power
-Paladin: I use an At-will power
-Rogue: I use an At-will power
-Wizard: I use an At-will power
-Ranger: I use an At-will power
-Warlord: I use an At-will power
-Warlock: I use an At-will power
-Cleric: I use an At-will power
-Barbarian: I use an At-will power
-Avenger: I use an At-will power
-Shaman: I use an At-will power
-Druid: I use an At-will power

Though in all honesty I have seen the first round of a 4e fight go like this on more than one occasion...

You mean something like the below? (Which is a mix of two or three actual fights - it isn't normally the case that people open with At Wills unless it's what the situation calls for).


DM: He calls for help and you guys get a surprise round.

Thief: I have Combat Advantage with First Strike and throw my dagger at him. [Hits for lots of damage].

Warlord: "Kill that [Expletive deleted]" Direct the strike at the Thief to throw a dagger at him again. [First strike still working, and thieves hardly ever miss. Lots more damage]

Fighter: I'm in Defend the Line stance. "Chaarge!" [Hit] I bash him to his knees, slowing him.

Wizard: I snap my fingers and a large crackling ball of lightning appears there, bolts shooting out in all directions. (Storm Pillar - doing about 25 points of damage to any reinforcements.

First round

Thief: Death from above. Using Acrobat's Trick I climb up that wall, along the ceiling, and drop down onto him leading with my shortsword point first. [Hit for even more damage]

DM: He wacks the fighter and hits. Hard. And calls for help. The door to the first guardroom opens outwards but seem cowed by the Storm Pillar. Four guards come out of the second but don't try to get past it.

Warlord: Seemingly accidently lowering my shield as I attack him I tell him he has the brains of an orc and the strength of an elf. I miss (Brash Assault). Does he want to make a free MBA with combat advantage against me?
DM: Yes
Fighter: Not so fast. Battle Guardian. I bash him to the ground (World Serpent's Grasp). He's now prone.
DM: He's prone and in a Defender Aura? And you've heavy armour? The counterattack ... misses.
Warlord: I've taken him off balance for you. [Nods to the thief]
Thief: Hits him with sneak attack again.
DM: As he falls for your opening, taking his eye off both the real threats, the fighter splits his head open as the thief stabs him up through the back of the rib cage to the heart. He is thoroughly dead.

Fighter: I move to a position behind the Storm Pillar and take the total defence action before smirking to the guards.

Wizard: I breathe out across my orb as the storm pillar winks out, and a biting wind whips up across this area, throwing [Rolls] three of the four guards back into their room, and those guards in that room against the wall. Given doors have no reflex defence to speak of it slams the doors shut after them. (Freezing Burst, Orb Expertise, and Enlarge Spell).

Two rounds of combat made up entirely of At Wills from PCs I've either played or DM'd for, and at will effects that have taken place in the opening or surprise round of combat. All perfectly legal by the RAW and the closest thing to a ruling was slamming a door with freezing burst. I don't think that could be remotely considered boring combat, do you?

 

[Imaro]

You mean something like the below? (Which is a mix of two or three actual fights - it isn't normally the case that people open with At Wills unless it's what the situation calls for).


DM: He calls for help and you guys get a surprise round.

Thief: I have Combat Advantage with First Strike and throw my dagger at him. [Hits for lots of damage].

Warlord: "Kill that [Expletive deleted]" Direct the strike at the Thief to throw a dagger at him again. [First strike still working, and thieves hardly ever miss. Lots more damage]

Fighter: I'm in Defend the Line stance. "Chaarge!" [Hit] I bash him to his knees, slowing him.

Wizard: I snap my fingers and a large crackling ball of lightning appears there, bolts shooting out in all directions. (Storm Pillar - doing about 25 points of damage to any reinforcements.

First round

Thief: Death from above. Using Acrobat's Trick I climb up that wall, along the ceiling, and drop down onto him leading with my shortsword point first. [Hit for even more damage]

DM: He wacks the fighter and hits. Hard. And calls for help. The door to the first guardroom opens outwards but seem cowed by the Storm Pillar. Four guards come out of the second but don't try to get past it.

Warlord: Seemingly accidently lowering my shield as I attack him I tell him he has the brains of an orc and the strength of an elf. I miss (Brash Assault). Does he want to make a free MBA with combat advantage against me?
DM: Yes
Fighter: Not so fast. Battle Guardian. I bash him to the ground (World Serpent's Grasp). He's now prone.
DM: He's prone and in a Defender Aura? And you've heavy armour? The counterattack ... misses.
Warlord: I've taken him off balance for you. [Nods to the thief]
Thief: Hits him with sneak attack again.
DM: As he falls for your opening, taking his eye off both the real threats, the fighter splits his head open as the thief stabs him up through the back of the rib cage to the heart. He is thoroughly dead.

Fighter: I move to a position behind the Storm Pillar and take the total defence action before smirking to the guards.

Wizard: I breathe out across my orb as the storm pillar winks out, and a biting wind whips up across this area, throwing [Rolls] three of the four guards back into their room, and those guards in that room against the wall. Given doors have no reflex defence to speak of it slams the doors shut after them. (Freezing Burst, Orb Expertise, and Enlarge Spell).

Two rounds of combat made up entirely of At Wills from PCs I've either played or DM'd for, and at will effects that have taken place in the opening or surprise round of combat. All perfectly legal by the RAW and the closest thing to a ruling was slamming a door with freezing burst. I don't think that could be remotely considered boring combat, do you?

Hmmm, yeah... you really didn't get the point that neither of those examples were realistically representative of how combat goes in either edition... did you?

EDIT: On a tangent... Why would you use an encounter or daily if you haven't identified which monsters are minions and which aren't?

 

[Alarian]

WoW is horrible example of homogeneity. Even classes/specs that do the same thing vary dramatically in how they play using vastly different resource systems and having dramatically different utility abilities that can have a significant impact on any given fight. If that were not the case group composition would not have such a dramatic impact on fights.

I agree, my analogy didn't come out well there. I guess what I was more trying to say with WoW is that it's turned into a never ending balance act in an attempt to balance things perfectly. It's impossible to do, but because they keep trying, people keep complaining if it looks like another class or build has even a 1% better dps output than another class or build. In their endless quest for the perfect balance, the end result is people get frustrated when builds they've been using and are happy with get nerfed. Some times you need to say "yes classes aren't perfectly balanced in X situation, but in Y situation you get to be the sparkly star. If you don't like it perhaps you should go play in another sandbox." This way you may lose player D but at least players A, B and C are still happy. In the never ending quest for balance cycle, Player D ends up happy but now player A's pissed off. So, they try and fix that and now Player A is happy again, but now B and D are pissed off. The cycle goes on forever until you have A and B quitting and the rest begrudgingly happy.

Anyway I seem to be going off on a tangent that wasn't intended. My whole idea originally was just to say keep the core classes simple and strong in their respective niches. EVERYONE doesn't need to be the best in combat. Let combat roles shine in combat and other classes shine elsewhere. 4th seems to be to be centered around combat for everyone. Everyone is just as good as everyone else in combat. Everything else seems to be secondary. (and no I don't hate 4th, I'm playing in 2 weekly 4th campaigns that have been going on for several years.)

 

[Vikingkingq]

Others would beg to differ, perhaps equating most to "damage + effect" but to each their own.

And those people would be making a trivial point. Casting Wish in 3X is technically [Undefined] Damage + Effect, but that doesn't make it less different from Basic Melee Attack which is X Damage + No Effect.

I agree, my analogy didn't come out well there. I guess what I was more trying to say with WoW is that it's turned into a never ending balance act in an attempt to balance things perfectly. It's impossible to do, but because they keep trying, people keep complaining if it looks like another class or build has even a 1% better dps output than another class or build.

That one game approaches but not does reach perfect balance does not invalidate the possibility of balance. There's plenty of other games mentioned on this thread that are balanced without becoming homogeneous.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, the oft-repeated, oft-refuted, never-true charge that 4e is 'samey' has come up on this thread again. It's as bogus as ever. There's really nothing more I can say about the charge or those who make it without engaging in edition warring, myself.

So, instead, back to the original topic:

There are no pitfalls to having a complex fighter. Not any more than there are pitfalls to having a simple wizard. The only issue is that it's different from what came before. The /only/ issue. Given 5e's mandate to return to 'real D&D' and be 'something for everyone,' though, that issue both can't be ignored, and can't be given precedence over the need to provide complex, balanced fighters to those of us who appreciated them.

5e simply must provide both the simple, inferior fighter whose only purpose is to take hits for his caster betters, and the complex, awesome fighter who stands as an equal along side every other class. Because both have their fans.

We'll just have to see how many fans of each actually play them when given the choice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think a lot of fans of wizards prior to 4e would say they were brought down MORE than a notch. The problem wasn't that wizard were reduced, well the problem wasn't Just that.. it was that they were now in toe with fighters.

Nod. There's really no way to reason with that attitude.

It just has to do with re-examining how the casters should work when compared to the martial characters and then giving an outlet where BOTH can become creatures of legend - with the chopping off mountain tops.

That's probably quite doable...

Maybe, ideally, the game could have modules to cover very different styles.

One might have rules for very simple fighters and wizards and everyone in-between who balance at a 'gritty' power-level, with fighters doing mostly-realistic things and wizards doing mostly rituals and 'magic' that might conceivably be little more than legerdemain, chemistry (and/or other anachronistic knowledge), and cunning.

Other modules might add more extreme fantasy elements, making wizards into true casters using undeniably-real magic, even in combat (with some difficulty), and fighters into super-human paragons of strength and courage who, likewise, do impossible things.

The dial could go up so far as to have virtually super-hero-like characters of any class.

Here's the thing about Scifi. GOOD scifi has a fundamental premise where somethings is extraordinary but then relies on normal or "mundane" assumptions everywhere else. You see this all the time. In good scifi they'll give you a piece of nonsense about how technology A works but then tell you that steam power can still run locomotives. BAD scifi does the opposite. It gives basic premises which people can accept and then becomes outlandish with the consequences that follow. Having steam run engines is fine, we did it for a period of history, but when you have steam computers and steam brains and steam this and steam that then you venture into bad scifi territory.

I know a few steampunk fans who would disagree with you about that being /bad/, but maybe it's not 'good sci-fi,' exactly.

In fact, steampunk has a bit more in common with fantasy.

Fantasy, of course, does neither. It takes outlandish premises - many of them - and runs with them in outlandish directions. While the premises of fantasy are preposterous by the standards of science of sci-fi, they're quite familiar to us all, because they are drawn heavily from myth and legend.

Where science fiction asks you to take a leap of faith in accepting one stunning premise, but then settle back into a mode of scientific inquiry and skepticism, fantasy asks you to leave all that behind and experience the fantastic with a sense of wonder.

I didn't say all that for no reason either. I said it because fantasy works the same way. Having a basic premise that magic is real, and that fairies and dragons and homunculi exist is fine. But you had better have those creatures work the way that makes sense.

See what I mean? No, fantasy does not work the same way. Just because booksellers but fantasy/sci-fi on one shelf doesn't mean they're the same thing.

everyone in a DnD world isn't a person, they are a class. That all gods, and monsters and nobles and everyone will have class levels instead of being "just a guy" or just a prince or whatever. I can understand if someone wants this to be true instead of what I understand as the basic assumptions of DnD. I don't understand when people insist DnD has always been this way or that it always should START at this premise. That is where I disagree and draw the line.

I understand the impulse to use the rules as a sort of 'laws of physics.' It's a very detail-oriented, nerdy/science-geeky thing to do, and I am certainly detail-oriented and nerdy in my own right. I quite enjoyed using 3e that way at the time. But, I also quite enjoy getting away from that assumption and using rules to model what we find in fantasy stories, rather than to model a world in which such a story might, possibly happen, once in a very great while (but probably never to my character).

Once again, it has nothing to do with being balanced or not. It has to do with stretching or breaking the belief of the game. It has to do with making fighters obey the same rules (and strictly so) as wizards. It has to do with fighters needing a "martial power source" with wizards needing an arcane one. Balance isn't the thing most of us complain about. It really isn't. It IS the assumptions that went along with balance.

I'm going to remind you that I don't want an underpowered fighter.

You're going to have to keep reminding me, because you're demanding things that'll make it underpowered, and objecting strenuously to things that could balance it. To clarify, you're urging the return to things that made the fighter underpowered and casters overpowered in the past, and looking at the one successful attempt to balance the fighter, and demanding it not be tried again in any form.
That makes it very hard to recall that you actually want the exact opposite of what you're fighting so hard for.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hmmm, yeah... you really didn't get the point that neither of those examples were realistically representative of how combat goes in either edition... did you?

EDIT: On a tangent... Why would you use an encounter or daily if you haven't identified which monsters are minions and which aren't?

I'm trying to destry the stupid 'samey' argument once and for all. Because they really aren't. And the problem I have is that full attack normally is pretty samey to me. So is move-and-only-ordinary-attack.

And several reasons:
1: Tactics 101 - the earlier you kill something the less often it gets to hit back. If you've a good guess that a monster isn't a minion (and you normally do) you want to unload on it fast.

2: Early control keeps monsters out of the fight which might as well be a stun. If the Hunter uses Disruptive Shot to immobilise an ogre before the ogre has acted, the ogre is more or less irrelevant (save ends). And likewise any power that blocks the monsters from entering the fight like a wall.

3: One of the best ways to tell if monsters are minions is drop a large AoE or multitarget attack or multitarget attack on them (Enlarged Orbmaster's Incendiary Detonation is a favourite of mine - burst 2 and will knock prone anything that's not a minion - see the point about control above) and early on you won't cause Friendly Fire.

4: Certain powers power you up for a big fight (Armour of Agathys, Rain of Steel, and Flaming Sphere come to mind). Use early or probably not at all.

5: Certain powers are opportunist interrupts. I use Powerful Warning from a Warlord as soon as there's a close hit because I don't know when I'm next going to be able to negate a hit.

6: Opportunities. If the enemy are too close to [Dangerous terrain feature], you use the biggest way you have of pushing them all into it. With a versatile power list you won't necessarily want the at wills as you have better.

All the creatures you mention here can be fought by a low powered fighter (or one with few options) as well as by a high powered fighter (or a more complex one). I don't really see your point.

Third degree burns are nasty. You need superhuman resilience to survive a dragon's breath or fireball at all. A low powered fighter might be able to kill, but can't survive.

It isn't a "trip" when a bird is plucked from the air and thrown to the ground, training in a "trip" isn't going to help you there.
It isn't a trip when say a floating creature is "knocked-down" either.
How is the giant centipeed "knocked down" and forced to take a turn to stand up from prone?

Flip it on its back. Then ask it to tell you which leg comes after which...

These are bad examples, sorry about that, but my point still remains that it has nothing to do with the terminology of the issue. I retain that certain creatures should be immune from certain attacks. Even later when KM mentions alternate forms of "disarming" HOW is that affecting creatures which don't possess weapons?

In 4e some creatures are immune to some attacks or conditions. But this is a specific (and very rare) property of the creature. This is a strawman.

I've never seen martial maneuvers as being responsible for keeping fighters aligned with wizards.

What they are responsible for is keeping fighters something approaching interesting to a vaguely tactical player other than being a power fantasy. There are only so many ways to say "I poke him with my sword" without going into a dissertation on historical fencing.

To the first point, they are super-human - exactly. They are getting their power from something. Perhaps they are getting it from just being that awesome or epic. But it really has nothing to do with their class.

But their class is how they interact with the world. All casting classes become superhuman from their class. Why this insistance that Fighters Don't Get Cool Stuff (when all casters do)? Why do you want to make the fighter a non-viable class?

What if instead of trying to compare fighters to greek gods we just gave them abilities in line with what they should have in a DnD RPG game. Don't force them to be one way or another but give them abilities to do what they want. While all the time recognizing that they are human, not necessarily super-human.

"What they should have in a DnD RPG game" is precisely what we are arguing about. If they want to fight the Hydra, they should have abilities like the person who fought the hydra in myth and legend. If they want to fight a dragon they should have abilities to avoid being crisped.

And above all, if they want to be taken seriously, they should have sufficient abilities to stand up to a wizard or cleric of equal level. To do that they need to be effectively supernatural. Celtic myth, greek myth, Faerie Queene, or Orlando Furioso level. What they do not need to be is mundane when thought to be equivalent to someone who can cast Wish in 6 seconds.

If magic were reduced (by any number of methods) while still allowing us to cut say one or (with great skill) two of these requirements then that is fine. We get into troubles when it cuts all three. That is where we get abuses.

Magic in 4e is more than powerful enough. I've retired a 4th level wizard in 4e for being more than the DM could handle. And I'd argue that outside combat the mage is the most powerful class (the thief and the bard might disagree). But apparently this is unacceptably weak to many.

It is a problem when we let magic get out of hand, not that the fighters are weak.

So you want to reduce the mage? My 4e experience tells me that the amount of complaining that will lead to is ... immense.

I'm doing a game right now where my fighter is kicking all kinds of butt, and my wizard is annoyed he can't keep up. They are level 10 and while the wizard could go nova and kill the BBEG in a single hit he doesn't. We are using a modified version that allows the wizard a lot more flexibility but he also falls like a sack of bricks if eh isn't careful. With the BBEG, he knows that his tactics would be much better used on the minions or blocking the doors against reinforcements. He could focus just on the BBEG but let the fighter do clean up, but the fighter won't let him.

This sounds like a vast social issue at the table. To hear you tell it, your fighter is hogging the spotlight, refusing to do cleanup, and you both know that the Wizard could do the fighter's job by killing the BBEG but the fighter couldn't do the wizard's. So your fighter is bullying the wizard and the wizard is frustrated because he is being bullied.

It all has to do with giving the wizards limitations that they can't easily ignore, the SAME as fighters. Instead of making the fighters the same as wizards and allowing them the same kinds of powers.

Because "Hit someone with a sword repeatedly and fast" is the same kind of power as "summon the winds to throw the guards back in their guardrooms and slam the doors after them"? (See my example above). If that's your standard for the same kinds of powers there's not much I can say or do.

I think a lot of fans of wizards prior to 4e would say they were brought down MORE than a notch.

Oh, possibly. But this doesn't change that they are still arguably the most powerful class in 4e both in combat and out - it's just close in both cases. If they were brought down more than a notch that is because they needed to be brought down more than a notch.

The problem wasn't that wizard were reduced, well the problem wasn't Just that.. it was that they were now in toe with fighters. That all the classes were balanced and "same-y" was the major complain I saw over and over when talking about 4e classes.

As the effects are nothing like each other (see above) I can only conclude that the complaint is that they were brought down enough notches to bring them in line with a powered up fighter.

My point is that this can still be there. Even if you reduce the wizards you can still give everyone the power to do impossible things. It just has to do with re-examining how the casters should work when compared to the martial characters and then giving an outlet where BOTH can become creatures of legend - with the chopping off mountain tops.
But the key is making it that both groups start low and can rise high, instead of imposing a default high setting and then forcing people to scale down to get the game they want.

The default setting for 3.X allows the wizard to cast spells in 6 seconds with no chance of failure. That's extremely high as it is. 4e is, if anything, lower.

It doesn't mean that (without magic) you can suddenly start heaving cinder blocks 30 yards. DnD too often falls into this trap, having fighters or other creatures and people who lack magical essence able to do things that they would normally be unable to do, just because magic exists.

This is not a trap. This is balance. I don't mind playing WFRP where you can't heave cinder blocks 30 yards - and spellcasting is frought with danger. I don't mind fighters being larger than life and wizards being able to cast spells in 6 seconds with no chance of failure. But you need wzards and fighters to be in the same game. However if you try to do this in D&D you get them called 'samey'.

I'm going to remind you that I don't want an underpowered fighter. I don't think there are many who do.

Then stop arguing for one please. Or argue that all wizards should get blowback on their spells. Because you need to take the wizard down about another three notches after 4e to get it to the level of the fighters you want. Basically you need to either make wizard spells take a long time to cast (so utterly non-viable in combat) or always come with blowback a la WHFRP (2e or 3e) or DCC.

We want fighters to be martial, not be limited by a source,

I say potato you say potato. Martial isn't "limited by a source". It's a description.