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

[Tony Vargas]

I can personally report that I see far more improvisation in 4e play than in AD&D play. I haven't played enough 3E to make any comparison to that system.

Everybody's experiences are different. I played 3.x for it's full run, AD&D from '80-95, 4e, well, still, and 5e for it's first year, so far.

By far, I saw the most improvisation in AD&D: generally from players trying to leverage some real or imagined bit of Junior-high science with some oddly-worded spell to create some completely inappropriate result.
You also got a whole lot of players describing mundane actions in excruciating detail for want of any mechanic for any skill (like survival, which could be hilarious or sad, or both), or to avoid rolling an abysmal find traps on their low-level thief. Also, the occasional "I cut his head off! I stab him in the eye, the left one!" (Yeah, that's just an attack, sorry). I guess you could call that 'improvisation,' but that's not how it seemed at the time.

3.x, not so much. Iron rule of RAW, I guess. I knocked over a table full of alchemical equipment to mildly annoy a vampire, once. I think that was about it.

4e, not so much. Page 42 was there, but most players were so delighted with what their characters could do, that they didn't resort to it, or even notice it. I did play with a /lot/ of new-to-gaming players in my time with 4e, though.

I haven't really formed an impression of 5e as far as players trying to improvise go - it does lend itself to just saying what you want to do, and letting the DM decide. Not the same thing.

I really don't think you understand what the term "sour grapes" refers to. If I pretended I didnt want to play a fighter anyways THAT would be sour grapes. Am I bitter? Hell yes. But at least get your terms correct lol.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sour_grapes

You do sound bitter.

And, yes, Sacrosanct needs to re-acquaint himself with Aesop's Fables. Not that that makes you any less bitter. ;P

 

[pemerton]

Everybody's experiences are different.

Of course. That's why I counterposed my experiences to the universal claim that another poster was making.

 

[Uchawi]

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.

The biggest problem with any rule system when discussing variance or ad hoc rulings is what precedents and examples are provided. So in that sense D&D has always sent the message that magic can do anything when looking at classes or magic items, and it also has a tradition of demonstrating martial classes are simple in comparison; with less flexibility. So based on that trend the message is clear to choose a caster if you want freedom of expression, or the ability to be flexible (add more variance), and choose a champion fighter in 5E if you want something simple with little thought. So the rules are placing an intentional bias into the mix, where some would prefer it be explicit with classes like the champion where it is shown they have more choices available, and therefore would promote more creative thinking. Versus having to test the DM all the time if they will allow it. You also see the same bias when considering a class that attacks AC as the primary resource, but casters can attack AC and potentially all the other attributes as saving throws.

If you are taught to paint with 8 colors, is a lot different when being taught to use 256 colors or greater. You have more tools at your disposal and therefore would be more flexible or creative with the use.

 

[KarinsDad]

Everybody's experiences are different. I played 3.x for it's full run, AD&D from '80-95, 4e, well, still, and 5e for it's first year, so far.

By far, I saw the most improvisation in AD&D: generally from players trying to leverage some real or imagined bit of Junior-high science with some oddly-worded spell to create some completely inappropriate result.
You also got a whole lot of players describing mundane actions in excruciating detail for want of any mechanic for any skill (like survival, which could be hilarious or sad, or both), or to avoid rolling an abysmal find traps on their low-level thief. Also, the occasional "I cut his head off! I stab him in the eye, the left one!" (Yeah, that's just an attack, sorry). I guess you could call that 'improvisation,' but that's not how it seemed at the time.

3.x, not so much. Iron rule of RAW, I guess. I knocked over a table full of alchemical equipment to mildly annoy a vampire, once. I think that was about it.

4e, not so much. Page 42 was there, but most players were so delighted with what their characters could do, that they didn't resort to it, or even notice it. I did play with a /lot/ of new-to-gaming players in my time with 4e, though.

I haven't really formed an impression of 5e as far as players trying to improvise go - it does lend itself to just saying what you want to do, and letting the DM decide. Not the same thing.

This is more or less my experience as well. To be fair, many of us were a lot younger when we played AD&D.


The biggest complaint at my table tends to be things like: "What do you mean that the Fire Elemental doesn't take extra damage from cold attacks?".

There's this Hollywood / Real World / Old Style D&D morphed expectation system that certain things should work in the game in a certain way. A classic example is of an old school player that wants a Lightning Bolt to bounce off stone walls, or to blast through barriers, or to melt things in its path.


Speaking of which, I might need to house rule Lightning Bolt to do these types of things. From my 5E experience with it, it's fairly difficult to line up more than two foes without an ally in the way. It happens, but not often. So giving it a few more options, especially bouncing off stone walls, might give it enough utility to bring it on par with Fireball.

 

[SpikeTailDrake]

No. I feel like Barbarians greatly outshine Fighters at the lower levels and I never get to play at levels 11+ where that third Extra Attack brings them up. If I want to smash face with a weapon while being a tank it'd be Barbarian for me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The biggest complaint at my table tends to be things like: "What do you mean that the Fire Elemental doesn't take extra damage from cold attacks?".

There's this Hollywood / Real World / Old Style D&D morphed expectation system that certain things should work in the game in a certain way.

That was one of the things that really sucked me into D&D as a kid, that it came off like a B-grade drive-in horror movie. There were monsters, and there was a specific way to defeat each kind of monster. Some required fire, some holy water, some a magic weapon, etc... That and animated skeletons, of course.

 

[KarinsDad]

That was one of the things that really sucked me into D&D as a kid, that it came off like a B-grade drive-in horror movie. There were monsters, and there was a specific way to defeat each kind of monster. Some required fire, some holy water, some a magic weapon, etc... That and animated skeletons, of course.

I still have a bit of an issue with Holy Water. It's mostly a waste to throw it. 2D6? Really? Sure maybe if you don't have a magic weapon since many fiends and some undead are resistant to that.

I'm thinking of using a 4E house rule that I used to apply it to a weapon and it does a bit less radiant damage per successful hit until it is gone.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I still have a bit of an issue with Holy Water. It's mostly a waste to throw it. 2D6? Really? Sure maybe if you don't have a magic weapon since many fiends and some undead are resistant to that.

I'm thinking of using a 4E house rule that I used to apply it to a weapon and it does a bit less radiant damage per successful hit until it is gone.

Yeah, holy water is a poster child for "needs improvisation." It has pretty much always sucked. The damage has generally been so low that it's hard to even take out an entry level monster with it--and it's more difficult to wield than a weapon, so why bother? If the game allows non-weapon uses (5e has some) that's the only use it has.

I'd allow improvising of holy water shenanigans. It's not like it's cheap.

P. 249 of the 5e DMG has improvising damage examples. Falling into a vat of acid does 4d10, which is probably the closest to holy water. So you just need a tub full of it to push that undead/fiend into and then keep them there.

Or, you can use gate and shove them into the sea of holy water on the first level of Mount Celestia. It is a 9th level spell, after all.

 

[KarinsDad]

P. 249 of the 5e DMG has improvising damage examples. Falling into a vat of acid does 4d10, which is probably the closest to holy water. So you just need a tub full of it to push that undead/fiend into and then keep them there.

I'll probably use something like:

1) Bonus Action to quickly splash Holy Water onto weapon. It does an additional 1D6 radiant against fiends and undead on the first successful hit.
2) Action to carefully apply Holy Water onto weapon. It does an additional 2D6 radiant against fiends and undead on the first successful hit, and 1D6 on the second successful hit.

Holy Water clings to a weapon, but dries within one minute on a weapon. It can still be used as per the normal description in the PHB.

That way, if you know you are going to fight certain types of foes, you can apply it ahead of time. I suspect that I will do something similar with applied poisons. Injury poison from the DMG is only fresh (i.e. out of the vial) for a minute (as per PHB basic poison). If applied quickly (bonus action), it does half of the damage (or quarter with a save for those types that do damage on a save). Applied slowly (action), it does normal damage on the first successful hit and half damage on the second.

The PHB and DMG seem to be fairly sparse on information on how to use and apply poison except for the basic poison on page 153.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm even more generous with poison. If you can keep a poisoned weapon stored right (like in a specially designed sheath or quiver) the poison will remain fresh indefinitely. The 1 minute timer only starts once you start swinging your weapon around at someone. And I allow it to apply to all hits in the 1 minute, not just the first one.

That way I don't have to justify how drow and others have such uncanny timing that their poisoned weapons are always ready, while players have to waste a turn applying it.