D&D 5E 5e Fighter, Do You Enjoy Playiing It?

[MechaPilot]

So I ask you again. Crack the Shell is a daily 5th level ability in 4e. I've already said that in earlier editions, pretty much anyone can do something very similar, whenever they want. Not the exact same effect of course, but similar. If a player wanted to do that in 4e, they have to meet the criteria of of that power before doing so. That is more limiting, by the very definition of what "limiting" means. Your solution was to allow that ability to occur more than just daily, and to open up other defined abilities for use even if they PC didn't even have it. I'm assuming a game balanced as well as 4e implies that you should follow those AEDU guidelines. It's a HUGE part of the core mechanic of the game.

This isn't a position of ignorance of my position, because everything you have said clearly ignores that core AEDU assumption, and you're replacing a critical part of 4e's rule with your own houserules. There's nothing wrong with doing houserules of course, but you can't say version X is not limiting and basing that argument on the assumption of needed to completely redo the core mechanic.

The bottom line is this:

If a player wants to sunder the armor of an opponent in a game like AD&D, you come up with a ruling like I had done earlier. Anyone can attempt it at any time. It was stated that if you wanted to do that in 4e it was "easy" because all you had to do was use "crack the shell". However, that power is limited to fighters as a 5th level power that can only be done once per day. In what way is the 4e's version NOT more limiting than the AD&D version? It's not. Unless you change the rules and ignore the AEDU guidelines.

A power's stat block in 4e doesn't just tell you how to resolve the use of that power, it also acts as a template for adjudicating it as an improvised action. You modify that template based on circumstances such as 1) the level of the character making the attempt; 2) whether the power is at-will, encounter, or daily in use; and 3) any other special circumstances that might be relevant to that particular use of the ability against that foe.

Because of these modifications you won't replicate the power identically. The target number will likely be increased, it may do less damage (or no damage but with less of an increased target number), it may have a greater action cost, or it may have some other additional cost such as losing a healing surge or temporarily applying a penalty to the PC.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So when Hussar said he wanted to sunder the armor and do damage to a target, and said this:

I'm thinking, and certainly my experience has been, that that would not fly at any 1e or 2e table. At a 3e table, it would be problematic since Sunder only applies to held weapons/shields. I suppose I could try to sunder a shield, but, then I'm not doing damage, and it only works on something that is carrying a shield. It's not what I'm trying to do. AFAIK, there aren't 3e rules for this.

In 4e, that's a simple 5th level Fighter Daily - Crack the Shell. Easy, peasy, over and done.

He was wrong? That it's not any easier in 4e than it is in any other edition because you're doing the same thing by coming up with your own rules to make it not extremely limiting (as RAW in 4e has it)?



But either way, all this does is still support my overall point because as Hussar's post illustrates, if you have a defined power, you think you can do it and without it being defined, you might not even try. Which goes back to my assertion that the more defined things you have, the more limiting it is. I don't even need to point out the numerous examples of players who check their character sheets and if it isn't there they don't bother. We have an example right here where if there isn't a power specifically for it, then it's not even attempted. "It won't even fly" was the assumption made, when that's not really the case. I've already said how I would do it in AD&D

Hence my analogy of the crayons, and why it's an apt one.

 

[MechaPilot]

So when Hussar said he wanted to sunder the armor and do damage to a target, and said . . .

He was wrong? That it's not any easier in 4e than it is in any other edition because you're doing the same thing by coming up with your own rules to make it not extremely limiting (as RAW in 4e has it)?

No, he wasn't wrong because, and I'd need him to verify this (naturally), he was talking about it being easier because his character had the Crack the Shell power and hence he knew that he could attempt it without having to ask if he could attempt it, or instead of having to convince a DM that he should be allowed to attempt it (and potentially failing because he doesn't know enough about armor to describe it well enough to convince the DM), and he knew what would be involved in the attempt. Again, that's how I read it and you'd have to ask him about what he specifically meant.

Also, it's been illustrated time and again that whether or not people will stick to clearly defined options or ask about other possibilities is a matter of the individual. I've seen plenty of individuals in various editions play differently under the same rule set. Some people are just more comfortable sticking to what is clearly defined for them while others are more eager to explore possibilities.

Furthermore, your crayon analogy is far from apt. You want to mix crayons with defined powers, its definitely possible. You want to use Tide of Iron to trip instead of push? It's certainly possible. As for the how of it, you need to ask your DM what her ruling would be; just like you would need to do in every other edition of the game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

What's been illustrated time and time again is that if you give someone paints and tell them to paint a picture, and give another group paints and tell them to paint a tree, you're going to get a much larger variance in paintings in the first group. Any time you add additional rules and guidelines, you limit the amount of potential outcomes. This seems to be indisputable in every industry and every group except 4e fans it seems. Which is pretty odd. It's like you want your cake and eat it too. You can't celebrate 4e as being great because it defines rules in a very detailed way and takes away DM judgment calls, and at the same time say it has the same flexibility. Those things are naturally contradictory with each other.

And it's also been shown, time and time again, that the more defined system you have, the less likely players are to deviate from that core system. People naturally follow the rules and guidelines of the game. How many times have we seen players here constantly complain that class X isn't effective or good at pillar Y or skill Z because they don't have a high enough modifier? Or how many times have we heard players say that "the fighter shouldn't be attempting to bluff the guard, because the bard has a higher skill." Not only are rigid and clearly defined rules not conducive to coming up with ad hoc actions, in many cases they outright discourage them. When you don't have a "bluff" skill in the game as a mechanic, more people attempted it because they didn't have this implied "you shouldn't because player X has a higher value." It's the same reason Hussar said that in AD&D, it "would never fly" but in 4e "it's easy peasy". Are you implying that Hussar has a lack of imagination when you say ad hoc things are only player specific and not influenced by the game? it's a clear example of "what is not expressly permitted is prohibited" that we see in so many gamers with 3e and 4e. There's a reason why that saying came about. It's not an attack on Hussar or any other gamer, but of human behavior in general. I can't tell you how many times I've seen the same player change how often they try ad hoc things depending on what game they are playing.

Please note I'm not saying one edition is objectively better than the other, because lots of folks like to have clearly defined rules and balance and don't want DM fiat at all, and that's a perfectly valid playstyle. But you can't claim 4e does both equally well. It is exceptional at balance and defined rules. But that means it doesn't not handle rulings over rules nearly as well. You can't really do it at all unless you start adjusting the core rules that the system is built off of, just like in your examples.

Basically, everything you're saying is the exact opposite of what people say is great about 4e--the removal of DM fiat and the reliance on clearly defined rules. So forgive me if it seems odd that you are relying on DM fiat to support your favorite edition when that edition was designed intentionally to remove DM fiat. And so far the only example of you showing how 4e is just as flexible is by taking away one of the fundamental aspects of 4e and playing it like...ahem...AD&D DMs do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you let a player a create a character from a selection of many, meaningful, viable options, through which he determines the range of specific, interesting, useful, and/or dramatic choices he'll have in play, then, yes, he will 'limit' himself to those choices much of the time. Afterall, he picked those options to represent the abilities of the character he wants to play, so using them re-enforces and expresses that character concept, while "improvising" something else may be contrary to that concept, or step on someone else's.

OTOH, you give a player a character that has only a few explicit options, that aren't unique, and aren't even that dependable or effective when he does use them, and, yes, he might just go out on a limb and try to 'improvise' additional actions in order to have something interesting to do, or to differentiate his character from the next one, or just to play the character more effectively.

OTOOH, if you give a player a plethora of options, most of which are mediocre to bad, some of which are 'traps' and a few of which are exceptional, you'll probably see them using the exceptional options a great deal, once they figure out what they are. Until they figure that out, though, you just might see them trying to 'improvise' in exasperation after finding out how bad some of their initial choices were. But, even if they do, they can run up against collisions with the established options. If you realize, too late, that your cosmopolitan-nosefork is an inferior weapon, for instance, you can't just improvise it into doing things that require a bladed-whipsaw, since they're already established as possible with that weapon, and not with the one you're using.

Having a catch-all option of some sort for 'everything else' isn't a bad idea, and all eds of D&D (and all RPGs, really) do have such an option, if only in the form of GM fiat. It's not something that differentiates one ed or one RPG from the next.

 

[Uchawi]

It would like the rules to be flexible to offer choices to all the classes, including the fighter. Then you have a basis for discussion and the DM could rule a spell can not be used, or an equivalent mechanism such as maneuvers for martial characters can not be used. Without that, the non-spell classes rely to much on DM "may I', without any power to make a choice to further define their character to the same extent a casting class can.

 

[Ashrym]

Wow, you've played a lot of 5e in 1 year!!

I have, but most of it was in the first 3-4 months after release testing things before settling into a couple of campaigns.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

A lot of the options thing is psychological. When you see a list of options on your sheet (regardless of edition) you are likely to select your actions based on multiple choice. The same thing applies when you look at a list of actions from the combat chapter.

I'm have a really difficult time trying to break that habit (which I didn't pick up from 4e, by the way) in 5e. I want people to innovate and think 'outside the sheet' but it's just such a difficult thing to do.

And I inadvertently make it more difficult, because often my first response when a player describes something is "well, you can't do that because...". Then they are less likely to try things in the future (imagine that!) My problem is that I actually usually do want them to try stuff like that, but my brain is immediately comparing multiple game rules and how they interact, imagining how I might be establishing undesirable precedents, etc. When what I really want to do is just think of an appropriate ability check or contest and worry about it later. Then I end up coming back next session telling them I should have let them do it and here is how I probably would have handled it, etc. Too late though, damage is already done in providing reinforcement to just select from a list, even though I want to reinforce exactly the opposite. I just need to learn to shut up, stick a Kit-Kat in my mouth, and think about it before I respond.

It's difficult to untrain your brain once you've gotten into a habit of referring to multiple choice actions.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yeah, hence my sour grapes comment.

Except it's not sour grapes. I wanted a fun fighter like in 4E. And because a bunch of shrieking guys with incredibly narrow and concrete imaginations yelled louder about how their fun would be ruined if someone else played (not even THEM!) played a class in a manner they disapproved of, I got the shaft. It's why I utterly hate anyone who clings to their willfully limited v-tude as a reason to screw someone else out of fun.

 

[MechaPilot]

You can't really do it at all unless you start adjusting the core rules that the system is built off of, just like in your examples.

My examples were examples of rulings and not adjusting the core rules.

Ruling #1: What you want to do is similar to a power, so the power provides a great example of how to adjudicate it.
Ruling #2: The exact mechanics of the power should not be used as is because the power is a daily power and/or you are not expending a power use to use it. In other words, make sure the person using the power and expending a resource to do so is always better at doing it than someone trying to improvise it.

That runs in parallel with the core rules, it does not alter them, and it literally cannot alter them because there is no hard and fast rules for improvising a power.


Now there are some modifications that I made to the core rules (altered feat-based multiclassing, added a lasting injury system, etc), but those modifications exist separate from the improvision of abilities.