D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Obryn]

Then again, I dislike the notion all tools a PC has is always effective on all creatures or situations because you bought it with a plot card (power slot) so if it means you can blind a grimlock, trip an ooze, burn an fire-elemental, or charm a zombie without necromancy.

I was the same way, once. I've come around to thinking it's better to start with a default-approve stance than a default-deny, and think post-hoc justifications are fine and dandy. Oozes might not "prone" in an orthodox sense, but it's easy to imagine ways they could be disrupted out of a move action. Zombies have some sort of soul/spirit animating them, and I don't mind it being manipulated. (Though I should note - grimlocks have blindsight and thus can't be blinded, though I would personally have no problem at all with some effects "blinding" them anyway - say, deafness. And on the other side of the coin, I would have made fire elementals hugely resistant or immune to fire, if I were designing them.)

I've been mulling it over, and I have to retract my earlier statement: I can't get on board with CAGI. The forced movement and automatic damage just don't work for me. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Fine by me; as I said, I'm not agitating for something like CaGI to be in Next. I don't have a problem with it, but I understand that other, reasonable people do. I really didn't even want it to come up because of its penchant for completely derailing threads, even though it's justly iconic as a narrative-controlling fiat power.

-O

 

[billd91]

- A quarterback/running back tandem performs a play-action fake causing the linebackers to crash the line of scrimmage, abandoning deep middle coverage.

- A quarterback stares down the right side of the field drawing the safety 10 steps in that direction; outside of the hash-mark. When the safety vacates the seam, the quarterback hits the tight end running down it.

- A running back jukes right, plants his foot and cuts back left, leaving a tackler in his wake, scrambling for nothing but air.

- A pitcher throws an 84 mile per hour change-up with the exact same motion and armspeed in which he just threw a 94 mph fastball by a hitter. The hitter is foolishly out in front on the change-up, swinging and missing and screwing himself into the ground.

- A basketball player in the post performs an up-fake, causing the defender to leave his feet. He then pivots past the defender, stepping through and scoring an uncontested layup.

- A hockey forward behind the net, in the peripheral vision of the goalie, skates hard right, drawing the goalie to that post. He spins, stick-handling the puck to the opposite side of the net for a wraparound score.

Ok. Clearly none of them are magic or mind control. We can all agree on that, yes?

In 5e terms, all of these would probably involve a Wisdom or Intelligence Saving Throw, yes?

Ok, question(s) then:

Which (if any) of these would involve a force of personality/sense of self (Charisma) attack? Which (if any) of these would involve a physical attack (Strength of Dexterity)?

I think it's important to point out that none of these scenarios involve the target acting out of character. They are, primarily, bluffs and feints to get the target off timing or reading a situation wrongly and reacting in character but in the wrong method. These players aren't wizards or mind flyers rushing a heavily armed and armored fighter.

 

[pemerton]

If two classes in 4e - both filling the same role - were to fight the same opponent would they be expected to have the same outcome?

In general, no. If two fighters were to fight the same opponent, it wouldn't be expected to play out the same if the fighters were differently built.

In my own game, there are two defender PCs: a dwarven fighter-cleric who is a polearm specialist but also uses a two-handed hammer (Whelm, the dwarven thrower artefact reforged as Overwhelm); and a tiefling CHA-paladin in service to the Raven Queen.

The fighter is a low-damage melee controller (especially when wielding the polearm): whirlwind-attack style close bursts, lots of forced movement and knocking enemies prone, etc. His only meaningful ranged attack is charging, or Mighty Spring (an athletics-based skill power) to close the distance between him and his enemies.

The paladin uses a mixture of single target melee attacks with his khopesh, area attacks with his holy symbol and single-target ranged attacks with his holy symbol (most of the latter are immediate actions, retributive strikes when his friends are attacked). He has basically no control other than marking and a little bit of forced movement, plus one single-target blinding attack ("Eye for an Eye", one of his retributive strikes). Particularly against bloodied enemies, the paladin does striker-level damage.

The two PCs play very differently. The dwarf fighter is a martial controller. The paladin is more literally a defender, who can hold off the tough foes, bolster his allies, and almost never go down.

 

[pemerton]

I don't see how giving a character metagame power is natural.

"Natural" in the sense of the obvious, and only known, game design solution to the instanced problem, namely, of rendering two PCs - one with high ingame effectiveness and one with low ingame effectivenss - mechanically balanced as player choices.

I definitely don't see how conflating in-game and metagame concepts is natural.

If it's really about giving the player power, there's no reason to present the mechanics as being the property of a character.

The whole character sheet is a suite of player resources. The action econononmy is a suite of player resources. Some of those player resources (eg the equipment list, a D&D wizard's spell list) also represent PC resources, but D&D has always been happy to blur that line (eg not all hit points are PC resources, on the standard Gygaxian interpretation) and leave it to turn on narration at the time of expenditure by the player of his/her relevant mechanical resource.

Even a Fate Point or Action Point in a game that expressly labels such things as metagame resources sometimes corresponds to a character resource, for instance if it is narrated as a spurt of adrenaline.

If you tell me that I can only shoot flames twice a day before I run out of magic, or I can cast dominate person, but it only works on humanoids, or that I can blind someone with Glitterdust but not with another spell that creates bright light or could physically damage someone's eyes, I guess I'll buy into that because it's magic. If, however, you tell me I can only swing my sword a certain way twice a day before I run out of sword swings, or that I can only get an extra attack from Cleave only when a enemy is felled (which really has nothing to do with how quickly I attack), or most pointedly, that I can only blind someone if I've told the DM I'm using Blinding Strike (which I may even have to have selected in advance as a character option), that's not going to fly. Why, I ask as a player, is it impossible for someone to poke someone in the eye without the player specifically intending that effect?

The answer to your question, as a player, is that your PC could do that, but won't. That's the general nature of metagame abilities. (Just like, in a points-buy game, the world couldcontain a 1st level PC with straight 18s - say, Bruce Wayne - but no player will get to play that PC.)

I wouldn't add additional any powers to the classes, but I would give players actual fiat powers over the narrative using a resource system.

With regards to your concept of player fiat, I'm generally not a fan of it, but I like it under certain circumstances. The biggest problem I have is when it is incorporated into character abilities. This conflates the player and the character. The ability of a player to exercise fiat should not be dependent on what character he is playing (which I believe you would agree with), and thus I see no reason to incorporate it into any class mechanics. Give me a separate and explicitly metagame system to allow a player to exercise narrative control beyond the in-game actions of his character (action/fate/plot/etc. points are one good example, but surely not the only one). Doing that is inherently more balanced, preserves everyone's sense of reality, and makes it inherently optional.

This approach makes it impossible to use metagame effectiveness to balance ingame effectiveness, though. Whereas that sort of balancing manoeuvre is what's at issue in this thread.

The idea that the fighter can have as much narrative control as a spellcaster is foolish. Magic automatically offers more narrative control because it doesn't exist in the real world and is thus not limited by real-world constraints. Even in low magic settings, characters who have access to limited magic have more access to narrative control because the ability to do something that others cannot.

Arguing about this seems rather pointless. Asking why the fighter doesn't summon celestial badgers is like asking a fish why it doesn't ride a bicycle.

Some of us think that choosing to play a fighter shouldn't mean choosing to be a second class PC. And that the heroes of fiction and myth are normally the fighters or the rogues - who generally show abilities far above those the D&D fighter has.

<snip>

what should be done about it? More useful abilities for the non-casters? Metagame powers for the non-casters? Cinematic or even mythic abilities for the non-casters? Seriously nerfing the casters? Niche protection for the non-casters so that were they are strong the casters can barely compete?

Neonchameleon's point is a more general version of my own.

If you are not going to nerf the casters, and you are not going to give the noncasters cinematic or mythic abilities, then metagame powers is one obvius way to go. Weapon specialisation and multi-attack abilities of the UA/2nd ed AD&D may be another (and I think the Lamentations of the Flame Princess retro-clone does something similar too) - arguably these are metagame too (tweaking the action economy and damage rules to ensure that players of fighters stay on top in combat) although in the D&D tradition they are not expressly called out as such.

Many people will claim that this problem is solved by giving the warriors magic items. Most of these are inferior to wizard spells. It's a callback to the old Conan stories where Conan was going up against horrible thing of the week #57 which was immune to swords or whatever, and he mysteriously found the plot blade/had a wizard help him/had a dream from a deity/whatever. And this just doesn't work. You either have the question of "why not give it to the people with actual powers who can use it better," or the question of "why are these people crafting things which they can't use and can be turned against them?"

This sort of approach can work if the dreams/wizard mentors/items etc are part of the fighter player's resources. This would be one way - either Conan-esque or Arthurian, depending on how the player flavours the ability for their PC - of giving the fighter the metagame resources to keep up with the mage.

CAGI is the best example of what NOT to do in Next.

<snip>

A charm spell effects the target within the confines of the narrative. CAGI changes the narrative. I don't like powers that overtly changes the narrative, especially visibly (an issue I have with powers like King's Castle or other daily martial strikes). I don't mind luck/fate points or powers (which are invisible in the confines of the in-game narrative) but I dislike "I know this trick, but its so risky I can only try it once every 24 hours" type of powers

Two things.

First, CaGI need not be visible within the narrative, or "I know this trick". It can be declared and adjudicated as purely metagame.

Second, in effect what you're saying here is that you object to non-spellcasters having fiat, given you object to any fiat that is not explained, ingame, as magic. That's fair enough, but the whole premise of [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]'s OP is to explore different ways of giving the fighter player fiat.

If its good for the goose, its good for the gander.

Why? It's pretty much of the essence of metagame abilities that what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

The difficulty with the portion of the discussion that attempts to evaluate the Pathfinder Defender line of feats versus the Fighter's standard issue Defender toolkit (and then acquisition of Exploits and Feats to further customize) is this;

The action economy of melee combatants to deliver their payload is completely different and completely dictates gameplay.

<snip>

That is the issue with playing a Defender in 3.x/PF. The system does it for you as the action economy of melee characters being contingent upon not moving. Any denial of a full attack routine, self-imposed or imposed by enemies, is the best way to play a Defender.

Thank you for explaining this. It makes the comparison between the two games much clearer.

 

[pemerton]

Oozes might not "prone" in an orthodox sense, but it's easy to imagine ways they could be disrupted out of a move action.

Agreed. But in my own game, I rule that in these circumstances they don't cause ranged attackers to suffer a penalty to hit (as their profile has not changed).

 

[pemerton]

I read it as "using the rules to bully past the DM's story". Which is fine for free-wheeling, improv-based sandbox play but a real pisser when the DM prefers narrative-based play.

Sounds to me like someone just has a problem with DM's. You want your PC to be able to do what it does without ever having to ask the DM because you feel like you are being subservient.

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.

I don't really get this.

First, the player of a wizard gets exactly the sort of abilities that [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] is talking about - wizard spells like Domination were expressly flagged in the first few posts as examples of playe fiat. Do you two not permit players to play wizards in games which are about "the DM's story" or which require the player to "ask the DM" before declaring actions that might significantly change the ingame situation?

Second, there are other ways to play the game besides sandbox or railroad. Maybe [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] prefers one of those other approaches.

But mostly, I fear this...
Player: "I spend my expertise dice to use my Blinding Strike. After bashing him with my shield, I'm going to gouge his eyes." I roll a 19 to-hit; how's that?
DM: "Hmmm, he's a canny combatant and wearing a full helm. I don't think that'd work on him. Nope."
Player: "I used my expertise dice! He's Blinded! Come up with some explanation to explain how I blinded him!"

That looks to me like the GM suspending the action resolution rules. I'm personally not a big fan, but for those who are, presumably they do this for spells too. Why would fiat for players of fighters pose any special problems here?

What you describe is good when you are playing a numbers game where the world immersion is almost non-existant and you don't bother trying to put together, logically, why that worked the way it did.

Who do you think is "playing a numbers game where the world immersion is almost non-existent and participants don't bother trying to put together, logically, why something worked the way it did"?

You're not describing the game of any 4e player whose posts I read on these boards.

I find it to be a shuffling, numbers game with role playing tacked on to it.

That is a biographical fact about you. It doesn't tell us much about 4e, though, nor about what those who play are doing with it.

As far as I know you've never posted any actual play from your own game, so I have no idea how sophisticated or shallow it is. But Here are some links to some actual play reports that I have posted from my own game. Maybe you could have a read of them and then get back to a discussion of 4e, and metagame rules more generally, that actually relates to the way they are used by those who use them.

 

[pemerton]

double post deleted.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Even a Fate Point or Action Point in a game that expressly labels such things as metagame resources sometimes corresponds to a character resource, for instance if it is narrated as a spurt of adrenaline.

In some cases, yes. I'm no more a fan of ambiguity on that front than anywhere else. Rules that describe the character and metagame rules are apples and oranges. Let's call an apple an apple and an orange an orange. A feat is a property of the character. A plot point is a property of the player.

The whole character sheet is a suite of player resources. The action econononmy is a suite of player resources. Some of those player resources (eg the equipment list, a D&D wizard's spell list) also represent PC resources, but D&D has always been happy to blur that line (eg not all hit points are PC resources, on the standard Gygaxian interpretation) and leave it to turn on narration at the time of expenditure by the player of his/her relevant mechanical resource.

I don't buy that. If one player has a character with certain abilities, and that player can't show up for a session and hands his character sheet to another player, everything on that character sheet is transferred to the new player. Classes, feats, ability scores, spell slots, equipment, experience points, the whole of it. All of those rules describe the character, regardless of which player (or DM) is controlling that character. A character sheet is aptly named for that reason. By convention, a player adopts the role of one character and shares that character's resources, but they still fundamentally belong to the character. You're right that the two were occasionally conflated before 4e scrambled them together, but I would call any of those instances good game design.

The answer to your question, as a player, is that your PC could do that, but won't. That's the general nature of metagame abilities. (Just like, in a points-buy game, the world couldcontain a 1st level PC with straight 18s - say, Bruce Wayne - but no player will get to play that PC.)

Actually, you could get all 18's, if the DM gave you enough points (presumably because he wants Bruce Wayne). Point buy is a system, the amount of points you get is merely a recommendation. Whereas, when you run out of spell slots, you can't cast any more spells unless you actually break the rules. But that's getting tangential.

This approach makes it impossible to use metagame effectiveness to balance ingame effectiveness, though. Whereas that sort of balancing manoeuvre is what's at issue in this thread.

Indeed, it is at issue. Again, in-game and metagame abilities are apples and oranges.

[EXTENDED METAPHOR]What you're talking about is a case where one type of character has a huge basket overflowing with apples, and another has one that's not even half full. And you want to create balance by adding a bunch of oranges to the second one. Does that create balance? Depends on how you define balance. If balance is solely the weight of the basket, yes. Otherwise no. I think it makes much more sense to take some apples away from one and/or give them to the other, and leave the oranges separate.[/EXTENDED METAPHOR]

In other words, trying to take an imbalance in the game world and fix it with counterbalancing metagame abilities is not a good idea. At best, you'll end up patching the problem, not really fixing it. You're also completely excluding anyone who looks at the game with the rules=physics of the game world approach even by making the attempt. Why not look at the imbalance in the context of the game world and fix it there? What's wrong with doing that?

 

[JamesonCourage]

The problem I see with that is that being better at fighting is pretty much always useful in D&D style adventures.

I guess this depends on "D&D style". Even when I played 3.5, I only had a combat once every 10 or so hours real time. The PCs with good non-combat skills were extremely useful in my adventures. But I agree that in the majority of games, combat happens often, and combat usefulness is nice.

Being good at moving through nature is only better if the adventure is taking place in nature.

That's about how I feel about combat. If someone picks Ranger, it's because they either know it'll be there, if they want to be.

How do you make up for those things not being equally useful?

Again, depends on the campaign. Are Bards equally useful as Wizards? Kinda depends. And I'm okay with that.

Edit: I'm ok with different classes having different strengths and weaknesses. It doesn't bother me if the fighter is better at combat than the bard, but worse at social interaction. What bothers me is when a class like the cleric is a better cleric than the fighter, but then also ends up being a better fighter than the fighter at the same time.

I totally agree.

I think it's also worth mentioning that the editions of D&D I'm most familiar with are more weighted toward combat as a solution to problems. I believe this is especially true in 4E. No, I'm not saying the tired old argument that you cannot roleplay with the game. I am merely saying that PCs, their adversaries, encounters, and the game are all built in such a way that might tends to make right more often than not. As such, while I'm ok with the base idea that some classes are better than others in some area, and I'm ok with that idea in a vacuum, I'm not necessarily ok with that idea when applied to what seem to be the modern ideals behind D&D design. If one method of conflict resolution (combat) is most often the right answer to challenges or is most often a better answer to challenges, it stands to reason that a class which is built toward being good at that one method is going to be better than other classes.

This is essentially why I said I support 3/3/3 (in the three pillars) as the default, even if I wouldn't want to play them that way most of the time. Make 3/3/3 the default, and give people ways to tweak the classes to fit their campaign style. That's what I'd like to see, at least. As always, play what you like

 

[Remathilis]

I was the same way, once. I've come around to thinking it's better to start with a default-approve stance than a default-deny, and think post-hoc justifications are fine and dandy. Oozes might not "prone" in an orthodox sense, but it's easy to imagine ways they could be disrupted out of a move action. Zombies have some sort of soul/spirit animating them, and I don't mind it being manipulated. (Though I should note - grimlocks have blindsight and thus can't be blinded, though I would personally have no problem at all with some effects "blinding" them anyway - say, deafness. And on the other side of the coin, I would have made fire elementals hugely resistant or immune to fire, if I were designing them.)

I tend to believe that the best challenges are the ones where the PCs best toys don't always work right and they have to improvise. Beholder's and their anti-magic eye. Golems with DR Adamantine. Raksasha's near immunity to spells, and a rogue deeply terrified of facing incorporeal or elemental foes. They should be rare (I actually hate how all undead were immune to crits and how every monster over CR 8 had magic resistance) but 4e went way too far in making sure the PC's powers worked in every encounter. It made choices meaningless and it denies those "Bob saved the day" stories where the player with the +3 sword was the only one who could hurt the vampire.