D&D 5E So what's exactly wrong with the fighter?

[Tony Vargas]

Or martial maneuvers like grappling, sundering, disarming, dirty trick, repositioning, and the like. Explain the difference.

The difference between a general combat option and granting a player agency with a resource is pretty significant. Obviously, one component of it is relative exclusivity. Choosing to do something anyone could have done is not that big a deal. Another is how it's resolved. Improvisation, for instance, is a very poor source of player agency, because it's really all in the DM's court, and 5e all but defaults to that, being very DM-empowering. A standard combat option (I'm trying to think of one other than attack) has more agency, since the player can probably expect the basic rules to be followed, though, again, anyone could have done it & anything unique/interesting that might happen as a result is probably up to the DM. A resource with explicit effects, like using a slot to cast fireball, OTOH, is higher-agency: it's dramatic, it's not something just anyone could have done, and it's a meaningful choice to use it or not, because it's a resource that must be managed.

The only difference between 4E and 3E is caster balance, not the ability of the player to take control of the narrative.

The difference in caster balance between 3e or 4e and 5e would be more nearly relevant, but OK, regardless of what you think about a particular edition:
The player with a wildly overpowered caster is going to exercise more control over the narrative. Not just directly, because his decisions matter more than any other players, not just in concept since his spells twist the reality of the narrative, but indirectly, because the DM must shape the situations, story, and campaign around challenging and limiting that character.

 

[Bluenose]

3E martials could kick the living hell out of 4E martials.

Unsubstantiated Claim.

Now, give credit where it's due. [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] recognises the differences between the Superhero nature of 3e high-level play and the more mundane nature of high level cahracters in 4e.

 

[RotGrub]

I'm not sure that's accurate. I've seen optional sidebars and optional rules in a lot of games, and often in D&D. I don't recall seeing many of them being used. I recall AD&D 2e's modifiers to hit armors by weapon type table, 3e's opposed save and to-hit rolls, and several other options in the core books that I have never seen in use.

It really depends on how the rule is presented. At one point the play test you had to pick the healing and resting rules you wanted to use. There was no default set of rules. IMO, that would have been the ideal situation had that continued.

 

[RotGrub]

weren'T you the one in this thread talking about making changes to the healing rates in 5e?

I didn't not present any solutions as you suggested.

 

[RotGrub]

Some people just have real problems giving some of the narrative control to the players, which is what martial powers in 4e really accomplish.

I have a problem with it for the core. I also don't see why it's necessary. There are better ways to make fighters more capable and interesting then to engage in radical narrativism.

I was rather pleased to see that 5e removed most of it. I certainly wouldn't have purchased the core books had that not been the case.

 

[Eric V]

What's wrong with players having some narrative control?

 

[RotGrub]

What's wrong with players having some narrative control?

It's just not part of everyone's playstyle. As a player i certainly don't want it. I just don't like it. The narration is the DMs job not mine. I'm playing the game to interact with the game world and imagine things in the minds eye of my character. I don't want to be an author. If I want that I'll DM.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have a problem with it for the core.
I was rather pleased to see that 5e removed most of it.

Well, core is set in stone until the next edition, so you got what you wanted. No future supplement is going to change that.

 

[RotGrub]

Well, core is set in stone until the next edition, so you got what you wanted. No future supplement is going to change that.

Yes, but let me just say that I have no problem with people getting the options they want. I just won't play at tables that include them.

 

[Hussar]

I think the point got missed here. Sacrosanct offered the idea that a freeform game allows more player freedom. I've proven that to be false. In his game, I cannot do what I could easily do in a 4e game. OTOH, 4e has mechanics in place to adjudicate player actions that aren't covered by the rules, so the idea of "getting an advantage" doesn't apply.

The problem is, most DM's, myself included aren't very good at math, especially in the middle of a session. Say we use Sacrosanct's example of -4 to the attack to gain (effectively) +2 to attack that target for the rest of the combat. Thing is, it doesn't work. It's not worth it. In any fight with a high AC opponent, giving up an attack to deal damage to take a severe penalty to hit does not have enough pay out. If I need to roll a 14 or better to hit, for example, then taking that -4 means i might as well not even bother. My chances of success are just too low. I'm much better off, overall, of just straight up attacking. OTOH, if it's a low AC opponent, say I need an 8 to hit, I'm not going to bother because now it's just not worth it at all. So, we're talking a very, very narrow range of target numbers where this idea is even worth trying at all.

And most players recognise that pretty quickly. And they stop trying to do anything that isn't mechanically supported, unless they are very desperate, because they know that the payoff is rarely worth the risk. The cost benefit ratio is just too poor.

I honestly believe that free-form style games, like AD&D are far too punishing on creativity. When the rubber meets the road, players just won't try the risk because it's rarely worth it.

But, rolling this back around to what's wrong with the fighter, I'd say that this issue plays right into the fighter's wheelhouse. A fighter has so few options in combat. Hit things. Hit things harder. Hit things more often. Hit things harder more often. That's about it. They don't get status effects, they don't get to do much else than simply ablate HP. I can see why people are disappointed in the fighter. Granted, I like the fighter. I have no problems with a simpler character. I'm playing a fighter in our Dragonlance game and having a blast. But, OTOH, I can see where the criticisms are coming from.

Maybe if they bring back the Bo9S style fighters - Crusader, Swordsage - like in the recent WOTC survey, we'll see some movement on the idea of a more complicated fighter. Certainly since I see that the Psionic classes can now leverage Hit Dice during combat, I can see them sneaking in Warlord style fighters in through the back door.