D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Remathilis]

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

MY point is that you don't need metaplot cards to do it. You can do it using existing system (feats, Expertise Dice) and by a common sense revision to the magic system.

If magic and mundane are out of alignment, the answer to revise magic, not make the mundane magical.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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)

Get Over Here - Target: one willing ally.
Warrior's Urging - Discussed - it's Improved Come And Get It.
King's Castle - Switch places with a willing adjacent ally
Bait and Switch - involves a physical attack roll against the NPC being moved.
White Raven Onslaught - slide a [willing] adjacent ally
Knight's Move - Grants a move action that the willing ally can use however they want.

With the exception of CAGI and Improved CAGI, every single one of those powers involves either a willing ally or a direct attack (vs will, no less) to get the enemy NPC to do what you want them to. CAGI really does stand (almost) alone here.

but I really dislike the notion that other players can "override" my actions using powers, this goes for PCs and for NPCs for me.

The PCs are not overriding the PCs - they are enabling them. Apparently even granting a move action to someone is somehow overriding that other person's actions, let alone giving them an option that might help them out. And it's hardly immersion-breaking for the DM...

It violates the basic rule: the player controls his PC, the DM controls his NPCs.

Let me introduce you to Fiasco with its lack of DM. Or Monsterhearts with the PCs rolling all the dice. Or Leverage where the success conditionof a mission is to make the bad guy do what you want them to. As DM I am not worried about my control of my NPCs - there are always more where they came from.

 

[Dragoslav]

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.

White Raven Onslaught and Warrior's Urging are the only powers you listed that fit your criteria for bad actions, though. Warrior's Urging is the only one that doesn't imply physical contact and affects enemies. Most of the others affect allies, and if another player is moving your character around when you don't want to be moved, you can just say, "Hey, can you not use those powers on my PC?" If he doesn't listen, then he's probably not a healthy part of the group anyway.

To address the other powers more specifically:

Get Over Here: The Fighter physically drags an ally (the reach is "Melee 1") to an adjacent square.
King's Castle: You physically swap places with an ally. You could easily assume that you're just ducking behind an ally, possibly shoving him forward.
Bait and Switch: The Rogue attacks an enemy in a way that forces the opponent to move in a certain way to avoid being hit, and the Rogue takes advantage of this by slipping behind the enemy.
Knight's Move: This isn't even forced movement. The ally "can" take Move action to go wherever it wants.

White Raven Onslaught is just teamwork.

Even Warrior's Urging is an Epic tier power, so it's meant to be something done by demigods and their peers and thus isn't on the same level as these other powers being discussed.

EDIT: Oops, Neonchameleon beat me to it. I just got Neonchameleon'd.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'd go for something like the WFRP 2e magic system. Characters get a number of casting dice (d6) equal to their magic level, and can use some or all of them. Each spell may be attempted at will but has an activation number (4+, 7+, 15+, etc.). If all the dice roll a 1 they need to cleanse themselves before they can attempt miracles again. If there are any doubles in the dice, the God is slightly cranky - look up the miscast chart. If there are triples the God is really cranky. And if all four dice roll the same number ... run!

Interesting.

But it is easy for you to make a 4e character with no metagame powers.

Really? How?

I consider allowing both a superior choice because it allows everyone what they want.

If it's impossible to play (or effectively play) a particular character without metagame powers because that character type has them built in, not everyone is getting what they want.

If, on the other hand, there is a separate system for metagame manipulations (player fiat, whatever) that is available at the DM's option, then everyone gets what they want.

I wouldn't because you get enough analysis paralysis with the half dozen or so options 4e presents for how to hit someone.

That is an issue. Expressing the processes deemed relevant to combat in a concise way and with an appropriate level of abstraction such that the game is actually playable is what the designers are paid to do, however.

 

[n00bdragon]

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


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.

And you'll find a number of abstractions in pre-4e games that aren't present in 4e. Seriously, this statement has no point. Just because B contains elements not found in A doesn't mean that B contains more elements than A unless B also contains every element in A. But nice try fingering someone as "dishonest" with classic cherry-picking "evidence" anyhow.

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

What? You want a sidebar giving an in depth example of how Ragnar pushes back a goblin with his Tide of Iron power? What's going on is self obvious since the power explicitly requires you to be carrying a shield. If I came up to you and told you "Hey, I need some help starting my car. You can only help me if have jumper cables." would you not automatically assume that the car would need to be jump started?

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

I guess that's a difference in the level we visualise the world at.

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.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Healing surges,

Are actually a whole lot less abstract than hit points were in the first place.

overnight healing,

Is a design decision. They should IMO have had half a page on the meaning of "Extended rest" and setting that dial. Not abstract. Possibly a bad design decision (I maintain that overnight magic recovery was a bad design decision in the first place).

daily martial powers,

This you can have. It's a lot better than no moments of awesome but is abstract.

Intelligence to AC,

AC is very abstract anyway.

automatically knowing magic item properties,

Not even slightly abstract. A change, yes. Abstract, no.

the overall AEDU system, minions,

You can have those two.

monster roles,

Because describing how a monster behaves in a fight is now abstract?

powers like CAGI

all of them very abstract.

Again, you keep using that word.

To say that 4e is the "least abstract" edition of D&D is as dishonest as saying as it's more lethal than 3e.

There are a couple of abstract parts in 4e, but we're looking at the system as a whole. And I maintain my claim that 1 minute combat rounds are incredibly abstract. And unrealistic for most fights. And 3.X's "You can do everything you can do with a sword all the time (fatigue and opportunity be damned)" is more abstract than 4e.

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

For every power? How big do you want the PHB to be? The size of an old New York phonebook?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Really? How?

Decide which powers you consider metagamy and don't take them. Alternatively take one of the Essentials Martial classes - which have no daily powers at all, and very simple boosts as encounter powers (and Stances rather than At Wills).

If it's impossible to play (or effectively play) a particular character without metagame powers because that character type has them built in, not everyone is getting what they want.

The Martial classes all have Essentials versions. The magic using classes have magic.

That is an issue. Expressing the processes deemed relevant to combat in a concise way and with an appropriate level of abstraction such that the game is actually playable is what the designers are paid to do, however.

Seven plus or minus two. You shouldn't have more than five options at any given decision point.

 

[Obryn]

MY point is that you don't need metaplot cards to do it. You can do it using existing system (feats, Expertise Dice) and by a common sense revision to the magic system.

If magic and mundane are out of alignment, the answer to revise magic, not make the mundane magical.

Nobody, I should note, is suggesting making the fighter magical.

I've noted why I think feats fall short - it's a matter of magnitude. It's fine for at-will effects but falls short for more potent ones.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

Decide which powers you consider metagamy and don't take them. Alternatively take one of the Essentials Martial classes - which have no daily powers at all, and very simple boosts as encounter powers (and Stances rather than At Wills).
The Martial classes all have Essentials versions. The magic using classes have magic..

D&D Essentials was the first realization WotC had on how bad initial 4e design ideas were and they tried to put the smoke back in the bottle. I applauded them even then for abandoning universal ADEU and beginning the patch-job needed to make 4e salvageable Alas, it appears it came too little, too late, and with an almost schizophrenic method of release (it tried so hard NOT to be the 4.5 it was that it shot itself in the foot on being taken seriously.)

Truly, an all-Essentials game is the only way I'd play, or run, 4e. I fully expected it to be the backbone of 5e (before Next, much to my happiness).

 

[Remathilis]

Nobody, I should note, is suggesting making the fighter magical.

I've noted why I think feats fall short - it's a matter of magnitude. It's fine for at-will effects but falls short for more potent ones.

-O

I've yet to see an ability you've mentioned (aside from CaGI, which we both agreed is off the table) that can't be replicated by a feat, Expertise, or some system of augmenting attacks.

So, enlighten. What EXACTLY should fighters be getting that can't be replicated by a feat or ED?