D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Obryn]

Why do powers make a fighter "not suck"? I play Pathfinder fighters a lot and they don't suck, in fact they are the exact opposite of suck. They don't need powers and magic spells to kick people's, gods, and other creature's ass.

I think some of you would be better off playing some other class.

"I play 1e fighters. They don't need feats and buffs to kick ass. I think you would be better off playing another class."

-O

 

[Obryn]

Is it described as a magical compulsion?

How is the Monk slipping on gravel or getting distracted magical compulsion?

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

Face it. People just want the fighter to suck.

Indeed. They refuse to acknowledge the coolness of combat, and insist on replacing D&D's tough-as-nails, take-no-prisoners badass with a walking deck of "plot cards". They resist the idea of rules that allow for real wounds, real attacks, and real tactics. They just want fighters to suck.

Ugh. "People".

 

[Bedrockgames]

Face it. People just want the fighter to suck. They don't like it when he gets nice things even if they aren't playing him, and they will twist themselves into any mental pretzel they need to to justify this belief to themselves, no matter how ridiculous. He's the red-headed step child of D&D.

.

no. This isnt what people want. Folks have reasonable disagreements on what constitutes a fun, playable, believable and interesting fighter. But players who do not like fighter powers aren't seeking to make the fighter unfun, anymore than players who want encounter and daily powers for them are seeking to make fighters unrealistic. People simply disagree on a few key things and have different expectations. But starting from the position that those who disagree with you are seeking to destroy the game, will not lead to a productive discussion.

 

[Remathilis]

And that, @Remathilis, is why I'm asking you to pick a power other than CAGI to pick on; pre-errata CAGI (alongside its upgraded version) is literally the only fighter encounter power I am aware of that has the metagame properties you object to in its own right. Choosing it as your continual refrain is like me coming back to fabricate and the D&D economy every five seconds. It's repetative, it's tedious, and all it shows is that there exists a single power you don't like. I might as well center my entire criticism of Pathfinder around the original Prone Shooter. CAGI is a power that exists to replicate the common moment on screen where just about everyone tries to dogpile the warrior almost in defiance of sense. This happens to the point of being cliche - if you want a game where things like that happen then why not use it? If you don't, not using it is not even a houserule. It's simply that this one power is incompatable with the tone of game you want to run. You think that D&D should be laser-focussed onto a single tone?

Oh, for Baator's sake: Get Over Here, Warrior's Urging, King's Castle, Bait and Switch, White Raven Onslaught, Knight's Move. That came for a quick glancing of my PHB1, which is all I'm willing to devote to research.

Basically, I don't like others moving my PC (or NPCs) for me unless I've physically being pushed or pulled (bull rush or knocked prone). Most of these are optional movement (since they affect allies, who can always refuse) but I really dislike the notion that other players can "override" my actions using powers, this goes for PCs and for NPCs for me. It violates the basic rule: the player controls his PC, the DM controls his NPCs. Most DMs use shortcuts (reaction rolls or charisma skills) but if such a thing is nonsensical (The King becomes hostile and attacks) the DM can overrule it. PCs never have to fully believe a con-man no matter what his bluff skill is. Its the most basic tenant of a role-playing game, and I rubs me wrong when its broken without the aid of an in-game explanation (magic).

 

[billd91]

In fairness, while there are indeed some who prefer fighters to be a crappy noob class, there are at least a few here who want a more capable fighter but have concerns related to the degree the metagame should play in it. I think it's a simple, elegant solution, but I can understand how some others in good faith would disagree.

-O

Note that "crappy noob class" is your value judgment of their preferred version of the fighter. Same with n00bdragon's little diatribe. In fairness, there are plenty of people who find that characterization every bit as crappy as you find their version of the fighter and insulting to boot given the motives it ascribes.

 

[Manbearcat]

Oh you could have it in 3.x, more or less. There's not a substantial difference between an at-will power, an effect tacked onto a basic attack via a stance, and an option opened up by a feat.

<snip>

Due to iterative attacks, the feat has some issues in that it significantly downgrades a Fighter's damage potential, but there's seriously not a lot of difference between the options.

-O

Therein lies the problem. Its the same issue with "Defending" in 3.x/PF and all of the line of feats that support it (Step Up, Following Step, Step Up and Strike, Stand Still, Pin Down, etc) and the Repositioning maneuver/feat. The Action Economy in that system for martial characters is entirely predicated upon Full Attack Actions. There is virtually never (except in the most absolutely extreme of corner cases...less than 1 in a 100 rounds of combat) a scenario where eschewing your Full Attack Routine for a minor rider is not tactically detrimental (forget about it being beneficial). Anytime after you have 2 attacks, you want to be full attacking to deliver the best bang for your buck in the action economy game. This is because riders typically (i) are not automatic (ii) the required secondary contest comes with very poor math disfavoring you (iii), may provoke an AoO (pending feat investment), (iv) and, if that's not enough, will cost you your damage potential (unless you have roughly 2-3 feats invested).

This, of course, is why the controlling portion of Defending in 3.x/PF is pretty well moot and dictated by the Action Economy of the system. Engage in melee; anything that isn't within a 5 ft step is fine because any creature would be absolutely foolish to waste its multi-attack routine (and possible riders that automatically come from them...monsters do get fun thematic things - Rend, Swallow Whole, etc) on a move action to chase someone down. It will destroy its threat/damage potential in the limited lifespan that it possesses (2-3 rounds, at most). Of course, you can't dictate target acquisition in melee so once you're in melee, you're pretty well just trying to mitigate and heal damage as no one is moving until one of you is dead. That is, of course, why Combat Patrol and Reach/Trip Builds are the only real functional ways to Defend in 3.x/PF; improved reach provides intercept capabilities when you aren't in melee already, you crush their action economy by intercepting/tripping, and basically dictate target acquisition (for one round at least...after that its moot).

Now. If the riders were swift actions or free actions or automatic...and needed no secondary contest (thus seriously hurting the chance to be successful)...and didn't naturally provoke AoOs...and didn't hurt your damage...and the Full Round Action was done away with and Full Attack routines were built into Standard Actions... Well, then we might have more tactical and thematic diversification to combat. But I don't think a system out there would/could do that? Would it?

 

[Remathilis]

Oh you could have it in 3.x, more or less. There's not a substantial difference between an at-will power, an effect tacked onto a basic attack via a stance, and an option opened up by a feat. The ToI "feat" might be, "You can make an attack as a standard action. If you hit, in addition to dealing damage, you push your enemy 5' and may advance to the space they exited. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Requirement: You must be using a shield."

You mean like

Shield Slam (Combat)
In the right position, your shield can be used to send opponents flying.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat). This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance. You may choose to move with your target if you are able to take a 5-foot step or to spend an action to move this turn.

Or

Pushback (Miniatures Handbook, p. 27) [General]
You can knock opponents back when you hit them in melee.
Improved Bull Rush (PH) , Power Attack (PH) , STR 17,
BenefitWhen you are adjacent to an opponent of your size category or smaller and you hit that opponent with a melee attack, you may immediately make a special bull rush attempt against that opponent. If you succeed, you push the opponent back 5 feet (only) and move into the square (or one of the squares) previously occupied by that opponent. You choose whether the opponent moves one square straight back, one square diagonally back to the right, or one square diagonally back to the left. You can't push an opponent back through (or into) solid obstacles or otherwise occupied squares. If, after making the bull rush attempt, you would not be able to move into a square previously occupied by the opponent, you can't push that opponent back. This feat can be used once per round. The movement caused by the use of this feat does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Special A fighter may select Pushback as one of his fighter bonus feats.

---
Notice: I have NO problem with Tide of Iron, other than it can be done at will while something like Dizzying Blow is daily.

 

[Obryn]

Note that "crappy noob class" is your value judgment of their preferred version of the fighter. Same with n00bdragon's little diatribe. In fairness, there are plenty of people who find that characterization every bit as crappy as you find their version of the fighter and insulting to boot given the motives it ascribes.

Okay. I am fine with making value judgments for myself.

Some people think the 4e Fighter is crappy. I think making it a newbie class is crappy.

EDIT: Note, though, I'm not saying people who want it to be a newbie class are arguing in bad faith or what have you. Just that I think that the outcome is ... well, crappy.

-O

 

[B.T.]

And I have more than the amount I need in 4e powers.

Well, I don't. At least not without desperately reaching or using narrative cause-and-effect (this happens because it's supposed to happen).

Calling 4e abstract is a joke. If you think 4e is abstract, I'd like to introduce you to Dungeon World. Or Fiasco.

Even if you mean by D&D standards, it's still a joke. pre-3.0 D&D is genuinely abstract. 1 minute combat rounds that are boiled down to a simple attack roll? That's abstract. 4e is incredibly concrete by those standards. And the 3e combat system that assumes that people are always in exactly the same part of the 5ft square every time and you can make exactly the same type of attack every time? You're simplifying far more than 4e ever does. And Theatre of the Mind? Way more abstract than the 4e battlemap.

4e is quite simply the least abstract that D&D has ever been.

Both Dungeon World and Fiasco are trash, but that's beside the point. That being said, I have a feeling if we go back through the editions of D&D, we would find a number of abstractions that exist in 4e that don't exist elsewhere. Healing surges, overnight healing, daily martial powers, Intelligence to AC, automatically knowing magic item properties, the overall AEDU system, minions, monster roles, powers like CAGI--all of them very abstract. To say that 4e is the "least abstract" edition of D&D is as dishonest as saying as it's more lethal than 3e.

Sorry bro, but if a game had given the amount of fluff I gave for Tide of Iron for every major possible type of attack I would put it back for being incredibly annoyingly patronising.

A few examples of how the power works wouldn't hurt.