Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[ImperatorK]

Nevermind...

 

[Jacob Marley]

I have confidence you can do it.

The Pathfinder ruleset is the one I am most familiar with designing for, and it is the 3.x ruleset most widely used at the moment, so thus the most relevant to this discussion. Plus, its just a little more fun with its different options for the classes, such as those for the wizard schools.

So any takers for the other classes? I'll try and post character guidelines tomorrow.

I'm not familiar with all the nuance of Pathfinder, but I'd be willing to give it a shot. Are we looking for a party of the core four? If so, I'd take the cleric.

 

[pemerton]

Instead of having a world that objectively exists and is entirely the DM's creation, you have a shared canvas where anyone could paint at any time, and it's often unclear who can or should do what.

I'm talking about what you call a Schroedinger's NPC. A game element that may or may not exist.

In my approach, it's clear that said character exists or does not exist at the DM's pleasure and behaves as the DM decides. It's clear that the player has no authority to dictate anything outside of his own character's decision-making.

Once you deviate from that, it's unclear how much the player can dictate. If a player wants to accomplish a particular goal, who decides the circumstances around that goal? I can't tell.

It is my firm belief that every RPG gameworld has elements that may or may not exist.

For instance, the PCs are in a generic tavern. There is a brawl. One of the players ask "Are their potted plants on a windowsill for me to throw?" Or "Are there coins on the counter for me to steal?" Or "Do the tables have nails and screws of wood or of metal - if metal, I want to pull one out to pick the lock to the backroom while everyone else is brawling?" These questions have to be answered. In Burning Wheel these are sometimes answered by a skill check (for instance, Furniture-Making Wise: "Everyone knows that tables in these parts have metal rather than wooden fittings because the local furniture makers aren't very skilld), and otherwise by GM fiat (which can include a random roll). In D&D the default is GM fiat (which could include a random roll).

It is standard practice in D&D, too, to determine the presence of an NPC via random roll (eg Does this village have an apothecary? Roll for it). At least, that was the classic approach - I don't have a good handle on how 3E expects these sorts of questions to be answered if they come up in play. (Contrast BW, which answers these questions primarily via the Circles skill that I described upthread.)

The idea of "Shcroedinger's NPC", as it has been labelled, is that the GM fills in the details of the NPC's personality - or, if the PCs are trying to locate an NPC of the relevant sort then perhaps even the details of his/her existence - not in advance of pla,y nor via mere fiat or random roll in the course of play, but rather in the course of play in response to action resolution attempts by the players. I quoted Paul Czege on this upthread. I have linked upthread to the Kas example from my own game. Here is another example, involving the PCs at a dinner party with a Baron and his family and advisors. The Baron's personality was not determined by me in advance accept in the broadest of outlines - he cares for his niece, trusts his advisor and is proud of his family. (All pretty stock-standard stuff.) The details emerged in play

For instance, at one point - in response to some player's check giving effect to what their PC was doing in the fiction, I had the Baron reply "I am a man of action!" The player of the fighter then took the opportunity to reply to this by emphasising that he, too, was a man (well, dwarf) of action - and thereby got to make an Athletics check (one of his better skills) to establish it as true in the fiction that the Baron did recognise the dwarf as a like-minded, action-oriented individual. That's an example of how authoring the details during rather than in advance of play creates scope for the players to push things one way or another, and for the GM to push back against the players, with the resulting changes in fictional position of the PCs closing some options down but opening other options up.

A secondary effect, but for me also quite desirable, of this sort of play is that it discourages excessive time spent on planning and preparation, and encourages players to achieve their goals by engaging and shaping the scenes that are framed. So more of playtime is spent actually resolving things than planning how to resolve things. I think this is one significant difference between Gygaxian and "indie" play. (Not the only one, obviously.)

the Diplomacy skill has very specific uses and the rules place very specific restrictions on its use. Our point is that using these restraints is not representative of arbitrary or capricious DM force anymore than not allowing Swim to be used in a desert is.

Yes. I explained upthread why, for my playstyle, this is a terrible mechanic - because it forces me simply to fiat whether or not the player suffers a huge (-10) check penalty; and why I therefore prefer a skill challenge approach, where my choice as to present the chamberlain as impatient and leavning, or impatient but listening, changes the fiction - in the way just explained with respect to "Schroedinger's NPC" but doesn't change the prospects of success for the player.

At that point, the players are no longer playing their characters (and I wouldn't see any reason to attach an individual to a character) and it's more of a shared storytelling game.

At this point you're just theorycrafting. Look at any of my actual-play 4e posts. Or my actual-play MHRP post. Or the quote from Paul Czege upthread. Or, if you want theory, read this blog.

The player is playing his/her PC. S/he is responsible for the PC's personality and agenda. And for expressing the former, and pushing towards the latter, in play. It's not coopeative storytelling - that's the whole point of having one party responsible for scene framing, another set of parties responsible for the protagonists, and action resolution rules to determine what happens when the protagonists encouter antagonism.

I would disagree about your assertion that it's unclear who can do what. That's what action resolution rules + in-game discussion about the goals of the game are meant to set.

That's what negotiation is for. Plus, the ability to manipulate the scene is often mediated by character resources.

I agree with this.

In HeroWars/Quest and in Marvel Heroic RP, the "discussion about the goals of the game" is framed as a credibility test. That is, as part of action declaration a player has to explain what exactly it is that his/her PC is trying to achieve, and before we actually proceed to resolution there has to be agreement that what the PC is attempting is feasible in genre terms. This is why, in MHRP, Captain America with super-soldier strength can't simply build a dice pool to beat The Thing in an arm wrestle. If Cap wants to use his strength to defeat The Thing, the player is going to have to declare an action that makes sense - say, using his strength to knock down a pillar, which then means that the buidling collapses on The Thing before Thing can brace himself to hold it up.

Who is in charge of the "credibility test"? - which, I cannot emphasise enough, is an issue of genre credibiity (a literary/critical notion), not ingame causal credibility (a scientific/physical notion). The table as a whole should have a shared understanding about genre; the player is free to make their case; in the end, the GM - as custodian of scene-framing - has to make the final call, as part of the GM's general role in ensuring that players aren't forced to take responsibility for providing their own antagonism (an intolerable conflict of interest given their responsibility for playing their PCs).

If a player decides to teleport in somewhere and the DM doesn't think that place should be reachable by magic, he's free to say no now and make up a reason later. Given the existence of countermeasures (there are some), it's fine to make them up on the spot without preparation. Does that require that the DM make a reasonable call as to what is and is not attainable? Sure. But that's how this game works.

I don't quite know on what principled basis you are condemnatory of Schroedinger's NPC but happy with Schroedinger's teleport wards - but anyway, this is a good illustration of a difference between the "credibility test" approach and a "GM force" approach. Instead of discussing with the player whether or not the framing of his/her PC's action confilcts with the genre expectations for the game, and helping the player work out an alternative framing (both HeroQuest revised and the BW Adventure Burner have nices discussions of this) prior to then proceeding to resolution and finding out what happens to the shared fiction, the GM is fiating a failure of the declared action resolution, thereby unilaterally determining the content of the fiction.

In my view, and in my personal play experience, the contrast is pretty stark.

So, would you let the player try to get off the top of the Empire State Building by just jumping and using a tumble check to land with no damage?

To try and convert the Pope to atheism using diplomacy?

This is an issue of credibility test. It depends on genre. In D&D or MHRP? The jump is absolutely feasible, yes - and so is the conversion, for a slick enough talker or telepath.

In 4e levels and especially tiers help with this. They set genre expectations. A heroic PC should be able to cause a village priest or goblin shaman to question his/her faith. A paragon PC should be able to do the same to the pope. And an epic PC should be able to challenge the convictions of Vecna, Asmodeus or the greatest saints of both earth and heaven. (It becomes a bit different when you move out of the default setting expectations. I don't have a good sense, for instance, of how Heroic, Paragon and Epic map onto Darksun play, but I'm sure me and my group would be able to get the hang of it if we were to play 4e Darksun.)

To try and cross boiling lava using swimming?

Unless the PC is very very dense s/he will be on top of the lava. When this came up in my 4e campaign, here is how I handled it:

The lava itself is difficult terrain, and inflicts 20 fire damage, plus prone and dazed, when you enter it, plus 20 ongong fire damage and dazed (save ends once you get off the lava), plus a DC 17 End check to avoid falling prone if you start your turn on it.​

That seemed to work OK. The only PC to end up on the lava was the tiefling paladin of the Raven Queen, who tried but failed on a jump. With his fire resistance he withstood the damage but spent some time crawling, dazed across the lava.

To try and make gunpowder and a gun assembly line using alchemy and craft?

This is genre rather than credibility. In a fantasy game I wouldn't expect my players to want to go there - part of the point of a gonzo fantasy game is that you build crossbows, magic arbelests etc rather than muskets, cannons etc. If the players were very keen I guess I could roll with it - in 4e that would require taking the Alchemist feat, and the recipes would be modelled on the existing rules for alchemist's fire and the like.

To play a Ferengi starship captain in a game that everyone agreed was going to be set in something approaching real medieval England?

This is also a genre issue. The same considerations apply.

I mean, those are all the PC controlling his player too, right?

If the answer to even one of them is no you wouldn't let them meaningfully try, then is it now just a question of where the line is drawn?

The real issue, it seems to me here, is what is the difference between a credibility or genre constraint on action declaration, and GM force in action resolution? I personally think the difference is fairly clear - genre is settled in broad terms ahead of time (and with a game like D&D, via choosing the ruleset in the first place), and emerges over the course of play via table consensus: you find out what the players think fits with the genre to a signficant extent by their action declarations, and they get a sense of the GM's expectations by the scenes that the GM frames. (Can the PCs start a pie fight to inflitrate an area a la Blazing Saddles? By default I'd assume not, but if the GM has already introduced farcical comedy elements into play, then maybe . . .)

If the chamberlain who won't listen is being presented as a genre or credibility issue, then fine: but in that case what has gone wrong such that the player has declared the action at all? I think this is at least part of what is going on when [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] is emphasising the importance of giving the players the requisite information (though he has not framed the issue by reference to genre credibility).

 

[pemerton]

More hitpoints, higher BAB, lots more feats, the ability to hit something really hard with a sword and kill it.

[MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] asked upthread about "mere colour".

Here is a possible example of "mere colour" - the fighter's ability to hit things really hard with a sword and kill them.

For those who enjoy this experience, I can see at least two possibilities: either they enjoy mere colour (I think this must be at least a part of immersionist play); or at their table these features of the fighter are more than just mere colour, but contribute to fictional positioning. I think in Gyagx's play the latter was probably true - look at REH's Conan, for instance, for ideas about how this sort of fictional position could be leveraged by an active player. However, the list of constraints on th 3E/PF fighter than [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] broke out 10 or so posts upthread suggests that this might be less so in that system, just because more options have become mechanically defined and hence sheer fictional positioning has less to contribute to action resolution. This may be part of why, at some tables at least, the 3E fighter is felt to be particularly lacklustre.

 

[pemerton]

It is not the rules’ fault if the ripple effect from my rules hack are not to my liking. It is my fault for not considering the full implications of my change.

Seriously?

So I should be upset that Toon does not support my Call of Cthulhu fix, or that in Call of Cthulhu, my guys keep going insane.

The mechanics are what they are because they are designed around a playstyle. If that's not your playstyle, then you need to find a different game or a different ruleset, which I assume you have.

One of the important considerations game designers must make is what play styles they should support, and this will have a dramatic impact on the game's suitability to a variety of play groups.

Seriously. Nothing in D&D says that my playstyle isn't intended. I'm using rules the game gives me. I'm using guidelines the game gives me. Problems arise. Thus it's a flaw of the game, not a problem with the playstyle.

I am with ImperatorK here. Toon makes it crystal clear, in the book, that you are playing a cartoon character. CoC likewise makes the goals and expectations of play pretty clear.

Nothing in 3E suggests that the GM is going to need a whole slew of tricks to maintain the balance between mid-to-high level casters and fighters. Nor are players told anything about this. (Contrast Moldvay Basic or AD&D 1st ed, both of which expressly tell players that wizards start out weak but end up dominating play if they survive. And also note the many tricks that Gygax suggestsin his DMG for handling those powerful casters.)

And, if it's needed, Rule 0 is the RAW.

But the books don't tell me, as GM, what I'm expected to do with Rule 0. It's all left as an exercise for the reader. (Which is a reiteration of what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] said upthread about the lack of clarity for new players in 3E/PF.)

It's no real surprise that 3E doesn't have this text: WotC wants to sell books, and doesn't particularly care whether or not those who buy them are buying a game that will suit them. There's an obvious contrast here with a game like Burning Wheel, part of the appeal of which to those who buy it being that Luke Crane is so upfront in his rules text and advice about what the game is for and how he means it to be played.

Interestingly, 4e tried to be more clear about the playstyle expectations that will make it work and was condemned for being too narrow!

 

[Lanefan]

Well, first we should agree on what we are going to test.

Versatility? I don't think there's an argument there. We can all agree that in a party, the spellcasters and skillmonkeys contribute more things.

Endurance? Spellcasters run off of spells and fighters off of hit points. You can recharge hit points from wands, but by the same token, a wizard could use his scrolls and/or reserve feats to keep going.

Combat ability? It is often stated that clerics could replace fighters without the party much noticing.

Durability? Wizards are supposed to be squishier than fighters, however, I can think of a few ways to even the odds.

And what system is this test to be run in ... 1e? 3e? 4e? Pathfinder? (reading further, I see it's to be PF)

Each system will give its own results, somewhat different from the others.

Lan-"it's all irrelevant anyway, until we meet the chamberlain"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

My imaginary, sandblasted, schitzophrenic, spell-fatigued chamberlain is getting a hell of a workout. It's actually become a bit of a sport for me to check the boards just to see what paces we can put him through next in his one-man crusade to succede as the poster-child for all DM styles.

Meanwhile that poor king is getting incredibly bored, as he hasn't had any visitors for weeks now...

Lan-"it's lonely at the top"-efan

 

[Dwimmerlied]

Nothing in 3E suggests that the GM is going to need a whole slew of tricks to maintain the balance between mid-to-high level casters and fighters.

Not a whole slew of tricks. One trick; "Carefully arbitrate", unless we include ensuring that all the rules are followed, including inconvenient ones, as a trick.

But the books don't tell me, as GM, what I'm expected to do with Rule 0. It's all left as an exercise for the reader.

"...All that game balance does is to ensure that most character choices are relatively equal in terms of their chances of success. A balanced game is one in which one character doesn't dominate over the rest because of a choice that he or she made (race, class, skill, feat, spell, and so on). It also reflects that the characters aren't too powerful for the threats they face; yet neither are they hopelessly overmatched...."

"...A DM who carefully watches all portions of the game so that nothing gets out of his or her control helps keep the game balanced..."

"...No one character should become significantly greater than the others..."

"...The PCs as a whole should never get so powerful that all the challenges become trivial to them..."

In fact, what follows (but I'm too lazy to type) is a discussion of ways a DM can reign in power as well as a discussion on trust.

It's no real surprise that 3E doesn't have this text: WotC wants to sell books, and doesn't particularly care whether or not those who buy them are buying a game that will suit them

Yeah I said this very thing upthread. In fact, how I read it is that it was a trend which was increasing since the onset of 3rd edition; the earlier splatbooks specifically mentioned DMs need to consider what is appropriate for their games, and while I think its open to speculation why its harder to find such references there in later-published stuff, its still there, enshrined in the rules and very clear.

 

[Wicht]

Starting to run out of material to pursue here so I'm going to run down a different angle of the conversation; "how do we make the 3.x fighter better."

I may break out a post about issues with the Fighter in combat at a later point (which I have a few, related to tactical inflexibility, lack of dynamism in decision-points, and lack of mobility - which is as much a product of the action economy as anything else), but I want to keep this post short and relatively focused. So for now, I'm just going to give my take on:

Non-Combat, Conflict Resolution

I'm going to break out some points that I posted in the recent Pathfinder Skill Consolidation thread. There are multiple issues working against the fighter here.

1 - First and foremost is their primary shtick (Athletics) is broken out into component parts Climb, Jump, Swim. The Fighter needs to be functional to good at these things by default.

2 - The Fighter's Trained Skill pool is deeply contracted.

3 - The Fighter's Skill Points/level are a meager 2 + Int.

4 - The Fighter's primary modes of resolution dictate that Intelligence is a dump stat.

5 - The Fighter's primary modes of resolution dictate that Charisma is a dump stat.

6 - The Fighter gains no Features that improve non-combat, conflict resolution.

Alright, this list nicely illustrates that not only may play styles influence the Fighter's effectiveness, but that character building styles within those playstyles may do so as well. And why I think Char-op theories are so often bogus in real game play.

Ignoring 1, which I marginally disagree with, and accepting 2 and 3, as given (though may I point out that both are equally true of the Wizard and the Cleric), I must disagree with 4 and 5 and marginally disagree with 6.

First of all, when building any character, I never use intelligence as a dump stat (and most of my players do not either). The effect Intelligence has on skills, if for no other reason, makes it extremely useful to the fighter. Now, generally, I don't encourage "dump" stats. When using point buy, I rarely encourage anyone to lower an ability below 10. When using dice, for a fighter, I will normally put the lowest stat into either Dexterity or Wisdom.

As for 6, under the Pathfinder rules, I can easily start a 1st level human fighter with a +4 to +8 Diplomacy skill (depending on the charisma bonus), utilizing Skill Focus. If you want a diplomatic fighter, the rules allow you to easily build one. Its all about making choices in character creation to get the kind of character you want. And, as a PF fighter is going to get lots of feats, that one feat spent at 1st level on Skill Focus is not going to matter too much and it still allows for 2 other feats at 1st level to be placed into weapon and fighting skills.

Returning to 1, if a human fighter has a 14 intelligence, which is not unheard of in my group, that will be 5 skill points. Lets put 1 skill into diplomacy, since that seems important, 1 skill point into swimming, and another into climbing. That still leaves 2 skill points, one of which, in our group will probably go into a craft, and the other into Knowledge (dungeoneering).

That would be a typical sort of skill sets for one of our game's fighters.

But if you use fighter builds where you are playing with an 8 intelligence, then yeah, your fighter is not going to be very good at skills.

 

[Wicht]

I'm not familiar with all the nuance of Pathfinder, but I'd be willing to give it a shot. Are we looking for a party of the core four? If so, I'd take the cleric.

Done!

Use the Pathfinder Core deities to pick domains from, if you would.