D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[ForeverSlayer]

There's an entire thread here full of examples of what I'm talking about. You can use the Book of Nine Swords maneuvers as some examples, if you wish.


It sounds to me like you're trying to be dismissive and snide, again, rather than actually bothering to form coherent arguments.

There are two layers here - the one I'm talking about is the "fiat" layer. These are things your character can do, with known and set effects, regardless of the DM's approval. This is something like, "I hit it with my sword," or "I cast Fireball." The methods of causing these events to happen and the results of them are basically set, and managed by the rules of the game. If you say, "I cast Fireball," there's minimal interpretation necessary - you have the spell prepared, you cast it, a ball of fire explodes where you're pointing. You the player know your character is capable of doing these things because that's what they're good at. The default assumption is that these things happen.

The second layer is a more narrative interplay between players and DM where the player suggests actions and the DM interprets how best to assign difficulties, effects, results, etc. The player has minimal fiat here beyond, "I am trying to..." There is no default assumption here as to what happens, and the chances of success might be unknown; it's based mostly on the DM's interpretations of the rules, the situation, etc.

Nobody is suggesting that this second, more traditional layer needs to go or has no place in D&D. I'm suggesting that the fiat layer needs work; my suggestion is to improve martial characters' fiat, but I'm likewise pretty okay with reducing spellcasters' fiat.


Good. Neither do I. I also don't want their sole job to be carving through HP tofu.

-O

Not all, but you are the one throwing around the whole "mother may I" phrase. If you aren't worried about the DM then you can be rest assured that he/she will rule fairly by letting you do something when It's with in reason or it makes sense and no when it doesn't.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'll give you two (as the first is "controversial")

Warrior of Legend throws down the gauntlet, roars a challenge to his enemies to pursue a prideful, perhaps reckless, course in wading into melee with him.

Soldier of the Seven Wars has seen every warriors movement on the battlefield, committed it to mental and muscle memory, and reproduced it a thousand-fold on his own. Three bandits warily stand their guard a few steps away, thinking on the best way to take his coin purse. Instantly, he spins, with perfect coordination and muscle memory he executes a feint of retreat. Thinking their prize fleeing, the bandits reflexively close the few steps in pursuit. Planting his leg, he springs back aound, the soldier greets them with death.

Fighter player fiat right there with codified mechanical resolution to back it up. Player decides when this thematic, tactically beneficial cool thing happens. Sounds nifty eh?

[SBLOCK] [/SBLOCK][/SIZE][/h]


The hopelessly outnumbered Dwarven Infantry defends the pass (think Spartans and Thermopylae) to their mountain kingdom. The horde of orcs, ogres and giants presses in on them but they will not yield. The phalanx holds, each man arm-to-arm with his brother, an impenetrable wall. An enraged giant hulks through the mass, bringing his bone club down with otherworldly force...at an angle that the dwarves cannot hope to defend. But Bob McDwarferson has seen his fair share of giants on the battlefield and his well-honed, battle-worn reflexes react as the blow is about to fell his brother-in-arms next to him. He intercepts it at the last moment; the blow barely gets through, crippled in strength to the point of ineffectiveness, as the giant cries out in pain from the shockwave traveling from his club up through his arm. The phalanx holds.

Fighter player fiat right there with codified mechanical resolution to back it up. Player decides when this thematic, tactically beneficial cool thing happens. Sounds nifty eh?

[SBLOCK] [/SBLOCK][/SIZE][/h]

That's not player fiat, that's using a power which is not the same thing.

 

[Tortoise]

I feel the fighter and wizard need their own spaces and should play quite differently.

For the wizard, "bending reality" is their schtick and giving the fighter matching capabilities steps all over the wizard's toes. Likewise the wizard shouldn't be jumping into melee unless forced to.

By that same token, "bending reality" is powerful and should have some kinds of limits. Less ability in physical combat, fewer hit points, limits to weapon and armor use, and of course limiting the ability to cast these reality benders to only certain amounts per day.

Should the fighter get things to help differentiate them from other fighters? I see no reason not to do so, but they need to remain as far removed from "magical reality bending" as possible.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's not player fiat, that's using a power which is not the same thing.

Incorrect:

[h=3]fi·at[/h]/ˈfēät/
Noun

A formal authorization or proposition; a decree.

Just as DM fiat is a decree from author or director stance (with absolute authority) of what happens within the shared imaginary space when adjudicating a player proposal, player fiat is a decree from author or director stance (with absolute authority) of what happens within the shared imaginary space and then they resolve their own proposal by way of mechanical resolution. Using a codified exploit or a spell that (i) imposes upon the fictional elements external to you and (ii) happens when you say so is player fiat. Players cannot decree without mechanical resolution backing them. They can make a proposition to the DM and try to barter/persuade/convince the DM that it happens. But that is not player fiat. That is DM fiat as the DM is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not the shared imaginary space is affected as the player has proposed.

 

[Obryn]

Not all, but you are the one throwing around the whole "mother may I" phrase. If you aren't worried about the DM then you can be rest assured that he/she will rule fairly by letting you do something when It's with in reason or it makes sense and no when it doesn't.

OK. Want to use the same system for spell casting?

I think both layers are critical.

That's not player fiat, that's using a power which is not the same thing.

Sure it is. It's one example of Fiat, alongside spell casting.

-O

 

[Manbearcat]

As an addendum, Player Fiat presupposes acting outside of actor's stance in one or both of:

Originally posted by Ron Edwards of The Forge

In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)



In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.

In the above two exploits I outlined, the player is moving in and out of actor stance and imposing upon the fiction in one or both of the stances above by; ret-conning the fiction by pre-empting its resolution with their own interests, dictating the environment external to the character, dictating when and how these things happen. Hence, fiat.

 

[B.T.]

Eh, I don't really like Come and Get It, but as long as it has a saving throw attached to it and the appropriate flavor text--which the original did not--I'm willing to accept it.

 

[Manbearcat]

Eh, I don't really like Come and Get It, but as long as it has a saving throw attached to it and the appropriate flavor text--which the original did not--I'm willing to accept it.

Did you like the fictional positioning I wrote prior to the player fiat (the usage and resolution of CaGI). Did you think it mapped well enough to the abstract mechanics of CaGI (Str vs Will, draw enemies in, do martial damage to them)?

 

[Argyle King]

You have watched the edition wars? 4e did nerf the damn spells. And IMO rightfully so. People for whatever reason hated that. They claim it makes magic no longer special.



Seriously? The 2e fighter rocked. Weapon Specialisation kicked ass and took names and when the fighter felt as if it was really falling behind you got an army.



D&D next needs a vision. A lot is going to fall into place when that happens.

Or if we want to avoid metagame power (some people really hate it), take the Gygaxian approach. Give them an army.
.

I wasn't bothered by 'nerfing' the spells. I was bothered by the manner in which it was done. I was likewise bothered that the answer to the 5 minute workday was to place the same problem (running out of spells/powers) on every class. I suppose that sums up my feelings on a lot of 4th Edition things: I loved the ideas, but the ideas weren't implemented in a way I would have liked them to be. For example, I've already mentioned that I prefer a lot of the 4th Edition fluff, but the way the mechanics worked made it so that the fluff didn't really seem to make sense in the context of the crunch. That's starting to edge toward a different discussion though, so I'll move on.

I haven't played 2nd, so I cannot comment. As said in previous posts, I'm most familiar with 3rd and 4th when it comes to editions of D&D. I'm also familiar with Pathfinder, and I've also used the GURPS rules with D&D fluff. I've dabbled very briefly into 1st Edition. For what it's worth, I do find that the 2nd Edition books speak to me on a level that the books of today don't seem to.

Gaining an army is something I don't think should be bound to class choice. Also, gaining an army only helps if the army is actually capable of helping. I highly enjoyed 3rd Edition, and I'm also the type of player who regularly took Leadership as a feat. I'm big into castle building and estate management. However, there came a point when I realized that no amount of my low level followers could ever hope to offer any kind of help for a problem which would matter to someone of my level. The power curve between levels was too extreme for having an army to really matter.

 

[B.T.]

Did you like the fictional positioning I wrote prior to the player fiat (the usage and resolution of CaGI). Did you think it mapped well enough to the abstract mechanics of CaGI (Str vs Will, draw enemies in, do martial damage to them)?

Yes, and sort of.