D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Remathilis]

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 @Obryn's OP is to explore different ways of giving the fighter player fiat.

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.

Here is my problem with many of the "martial dailies" concepts.

Fighter Bob has an ability, We'll call it Sweeping Blow. Basically, the fighter can attack in a burst multiple foes 1/encounter. (F3 btw).

So once per encounter, a fighter can hit everyone around him. Why? What does he do to strike everyone around him? How does it work? Where did he learn to do this? Why can he only do it once per encounter? Why can't he make the same sweeping attack again? What happens if he tries to do it again? Why do his foes "wise up" to THAT trick but can be Tide of Ironed all around the room if the fighter chooses? What happens if his other fighter buddy wants to try it too?

If Sweeping Strike is a twist of luck, than theoretically it can be done anytime the circumstances are right. If its training, then the fighter should be able to replicate it (since he can Tide of Iron or Spinning Sweep all day if he wants). There is no reason a fighter should be able to pull off such a tactic once, even if the circumstances round to round didn't change (all foes still standing in their original place relevant to the fighter, it makes sense he could Sweeping Blow again the next round. After all, its basically Whirlwind Attack 4e, and that feat (crappy as it was) was usable round after round if the fighter was still surrounded.

Which brings me to my issue with metaplot cards being PC only. Dominate Spells don't just work on NPCs. Vorpral swords work just as well on fighters as they do on dragons. PCs have no immunity to these effects, why should they against a fighter's CAGI power?

Let me set up a scenario: An adventuring group (a fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, and ranger) are wandering a dungeon and find an evil altar. The fighter, a brave dumbass, touches the altar and the DM tells him (via secret note) he is now a CE worshipper of Vecna and at the first opportunity, he must kill his allies. He's still a player at this moment, and he's not dominated (he has full control of his abilities) so the first thing he does is stand 10ft behind his friends and activates CAGI. What happens?

 

[Manbearcat]

He's still a player at this moment, and he's not dominated (he has full control of his abilities) so the first thing he does is stand 10ft behind his friends and activates CAGI. What happens?

PCs are vulnerable to movement effects (with the martial keyword, fear keyword, etc, etc). They can be wrong-footed and forcibly moved or terrorized and forced to flee by enemies.

In this scenario, he is no longer an ally. He is an enemy. As such, the PCs are his enemies. Therefore, the exploit works as written.

If you're asking for post-hoc narrative justification then you could abstract it to a Vecna-inspired scream and them being startled and tripping backward toward him as the jarring sound of their ally's (soon to be found to not be the case) primal scream reverberates through their bones.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Gotcha. I agree with all of that. I'm not sure how it addresses my post though. In 5e Action Resolution terms, what do you think should be the Attack Ability score and what should be the Saving Throw in each of those?

 

[Manbearcat]

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

No trouble. Rereading the post, I wrote it in too much haste and it probably deserves an edit for clarity. However, if it added to the conversation, then I'm glad for it.

In my estimation (and in my experience with the system - which is significant), that is the crux of the matter. Full Attack Action denial is even more important than dictating target acquisition in 3.x/PF

 

[Obryn]

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.

I like a mix of both - but given a choice, I'd rather every PC be able to contribute in every encounter (combat and non-combat), rather than spectating or cheerleading. If Bob saved the day with his +3 sword... well, what was everyone else doing? This sort of concern over my players' involvement to me overrides setting-based concerns.

Which brings me to my issue with metaplot cards being PC only. Dominate Spells don't just work on NPCs. Vorpral swords work just as well on fighters as they do on dragons. PCs have no immunity to these effects, why should they against a fighter's CAGI power?

Let me set up a scenario: An adventuring group (a fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, and ranger) are wandering a dungeon and find an evil altar. The fighter, a brave dumbass, touches the altar and the DM tells him (via secret note) he is now a CE worshipper of Vecna and at the first opportunity, he must kill his allies. He's still a player at this moment, and he's not dominated (he has full control of his abilities) so the first thing he does is stand 10ft behind his friends and activates CAGI. What happens?

My preferred solution is never to create that situation in the first place - much like the fabled "1st level wizard vs. 29th level minion" wackiness. It's a big, flashing, "DON'T DO THIS" sign. I think that altar would be simple bad adventure design; YMMV of course.

Under bizarre circumstances where you decided to do such a thing, it'd work just fine. It's not that the PCs are somehow immune or whatever - merely that, when creating adventures and encounters, my preference is to maximize my players' feeling of agency. I can understand a player expecting their PC to be actually magically affected for an "everyone rush the big dude" sort of ability. I have no such attachment to NPCs' agency, because the game's not about them and doesn't have to be symmetric in this way. (In fact, I think it's vastly better if it isn't symmetric.)

-O

 

[Remathilis]

PCs are vulnerable to movement effects (with the martial keyword, fear keyword, etc, etc). They can be wrong-footed and forcibly moved or terrorized and forced to flee by enemies.

In this scenario, he is no longer an ally. He is an enemy. As such, the PCs are his enemies. Therefore, the exploit works as written.

If you're asking for post-hoc narrative justification then you could abstract it to a Vecna-inspired scream and them being startled and tripping backward toward him as the jarring sound of their ally's (soon to be found to not be the case) primal scream reverberates through their bones.

But at that point, isn't the Vecna-inspired scream a magical effect and not part of the fighter's martial training? Or are you saying that the PCs are so startled that they wound stumble toward the foe and receive their whack as a natural reaction? Are you not denying the PC his agency in deciding how his PC reacts to his friend's attack?

My preferred solution is never to create that situation in the first place - much like the fabled "1st level wizard vs. 29th level minion" wackiness. It's a big, flashing, "DON'T DO THIS" sign. I think that altar would be simple bad adventure design; YMMV of course.

Under bizarre circumstances where you decided to do such a thing, it'd work just fine. It's not that the PCs are somehow immune or whatever - merely that, when creating adventures and encounters, my preference is to maximize my players' feeling of agency. I can understand a player expecting their PC to be actually magically affected for an "everyone rush the big dude" sort of ability. I have no such attachment to NPCs' agency, because the game's not about them and doesn't have to be symmetric in this way. (In fact, I think it's vastly better if it isn't symmetric.)

Bad design it might be, but its not completely unprecedented (check out area 55 in the Keep of the Borderlands). Anyway, the moral of the story while the PCs might be the stars of the show, they still have to conform to the same "rules of the universe" as everyone else. And if the rule is going to break (such as PCs get resurrected when NPCs don't) then there needs to be a reason "in universe" why it works (PCs have destiny, etc).

 

[Manbearcat]

Are you not denying the PC his agency in deciding how his PC reacts to his friend's attack?

Its a difficult corner case that you have outlined here. I, like Obryn, don't have these sorts of scenarios in my games. My table has a sense of what it wants from our collective gameplay and our creative agenda doesn't deviate from it (because it is informed by it). As such, it wouldn't come up in my game.

However, if it was, this is how I would run it. And I'm certain that my players would be in agreement with it. I guess its because if we're playing the game whereby allegiances are malleable (either due to DM fiat, player fiat, or action resolution mechanics dictating such), then the realm of player agency takes on a new form. I mean, if in such a game, ally can truly become enemy and enemy can truly become ally (as in a dominate or charm person's mechanics...and the conditions that would break it)...and a player character has a shift in allegiance such that they are now an "enemy" rather than an "ally"...wouldn't that player's own agency would be infringed upon if their agenda is now one to kill their former allies (who are now enemies) but their suite of abilities (which works on enemies and not allies) would be rendered null because a PC (who has a mechanical interest in being unaffected) is granted authority to suspend the legitimacy of the action resolution rules and state "he is an ally" or is "unaware he is an enemy." At my table, my players would firmly state that they are obliged to deal with the new metagame circumstances (ally > enemy) and yield to the mechanical resolution of the situation (rather than suspend it or fudge it) and narrate it in a sensible manner.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

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.

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

I totally agree.

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

While I don't feel the need to say so, I do want to clarify that I do generally prefer a lot of what you are saying. One of the reasons I started picking up games outside of D&D is because I wanted to play games in which a wider variety of solutions to problems were supported. Again, that's not to suggest combat is the only way to do things, but the current style of D&D tends to favor it a little more than other things. Ideally (and some of my posts elsewhere say) I prefer the game world to simply be the game world; interact with it however you choose to, but the same answer isn't going to solve every problem. In such a game, I am perfectly fine with different characters having different strengths and weaknesses.

I'm fine with different classes interacting with the three tiers differently, but I feel that requires the three tiers being given equal weight. Currently, I do not believe they weigh the same in the current edition, and what I've seen of the playtests for 5th Edition seems to indicate that won't be too drastically changed in the future.

As for the bard? Well, I'm honestly someone who finds the 3rd Edition bard to be one of the most underrated classes, and I'd dare say that the bard certainly can be more useful than the wizard. I believe that's one class which Pathfinder actually hurt in comparison to what they did to other classes.

I agree the style of game and the style of campaign is going to change the weight of some of the options. In a 3rd Edition campaign with a lot of undead, the rogue tends to become a lot less useful while the cleric becomes nearly mandatory. That being said, if we're looking at the default state of the classes, I believe we also have to consider what the default state of the game tends to be. As I already said, I would prefer an approach similar to what you are proposing, but only if the tiers of the game are given a more equal treatment. For me -ideally, I'd prefer the three tiers not be broken into pieces and instead woven together in one grand experience. I'm not even quite sure that three pieces is enough for what my ideal preferences are.

 

[Obryn]

Bad design it might be, but its not completely unprecedented (check out area 55 in the Keep of the Borderlands).

I can only shrug. That doesn't make it good design.

Anyway, the moral of the story while the PCs might be the stars of the show, they still have to conform to the same "rules of the universe" as everyone else. And if the rule is going to break (such as PCs get resurrected when NPCs don't) then there needs to be a reason "in universe" why it works (PCs have destiny, etc).

You can keep repeating this but it still won't make it true.

The rules of the game are not the rules of the universe - they're just the rules of the game which my friends and I are sitting around a table playing. There's a relationship there, but it's not 1:1, nor should it be. There's no reason why the rules must be symmetric for PCs and NPCs. In fact, I think forcing this symmetry is to a game's detriment.

PCs have a right to more agency than the NPCs do because my players are sitting around the table playing them. That's all the reason I need.

-O

 

[Argyle King]

I like a mix of both - but given a choice, I'd rather every PC be able to contribute in every encounter (combat and non-combat), rather than spectating or cheerleading. If Bob saved the day with his +3 sword... well, what was everyone else doing? This sort of concern over my players' involvement to me overrides setting-based concerns.


My preferred solution is never to create that situation in the first place - much like the fabled "1st level wizard vs. 29th level minion" wackiness. It's a big, flashing, "DON'T DO THIS" sign. I think that altar would be simple bad adventure design; YMMV of course.

Under bizarre circumstances where you decided to do such a thing, it'd work just fine. It's not that the PCs are somehow immune or whatever - merely that, when creating adventures and encounters, my preference is to maximize my players' feeling of agency. I can understand a player expecting their PC to be actually magically affected for an "everyone rush the big dude" sort of ability. I have no such attachment to NPCs' agency, because the game's not about them and doesn't have to be symmetric in this way. (In fact, I think it's vastly better if it isn't symmetric.)

-O

One of the ways to modify 4E creatures was to add templates. There is a class template for the Fighter. It's not outside the realm of possibility for a monster to have some fighter powers, and for some monsters it is highly appropriate.

I'm really not even sure what I'm trying to say here... I guess that it doesn't take weird circumstances or 'bad' encounter design for a power like CAGI to be used on the party. One of the most common ways to modify monsters in 4E would allow for it to be possible.