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

[Bluenose]

Yes. Magic is supposed to be more powerful at similar things than mundane skills. Isn't that why you call a magic user to do things mundane skills cannot accomplish? What would be the point of wizards or magic users in fiction if the same things could be accomplished by mundane means?

When your siege engines can't break down the castle wall, call the wizard to create a hole in the wall or beguile the gate warden to let you in. If you can't get two kings to make peace, call a wizard to force them to make peace through magic. If you need to find out where the evil monster's lair is, call a seer to find out. Isn't that the point of magic users in fiction? To do things that the mundane characters in the world can't do with their usual means, so you call in Mr. Mysterious Powerful Wizard guy to do it?

Remember Dragonslayer? They sent a contingent to acquire a wizard to kill the dragon. In Lord of the Rings it was a wizard that guided the hands of the heroes to destroy Sauron. Merlin put Uther and Arthur on the throne of England and acquired them both Excalibur.

If you read books, you should know the answer to your question. It is a resounding yes, magic is supposed to do things a mundane skill can do, but much better.

Well that puts me in my place. Obviously the bookshelves full of books I have are just for show, because I can't have read any of them or I'd understand that magic is the supreme force in absolutely every situation and nothing better than it has ever appeared anywhere no sir. Presumably the literature I posted up thread last time you made this ridiculous assertion don't count for some reason.

By the way, what level is Merlin? Is it just barely possible that the higher level character is the one who can achieve more? Can you conceive of that possibility, or are we stuck with a situation where every novice hedge wizard is automatically more powerful in every way than the greatest (non-magical) hero of the kingdom? Because Magic!

Why should I have need to rest in order to change stances or do a different maneuver?

I imagine it depends what warm up and practice exercises you went through during your last rest. Practicing for one type of activity and then doing another has a very decent chance of leading to someone injuring themselves and, worse, not performing the activity you switch to properly.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You speak as if I don´t know what I speak of...
I have played 3e and 4e for its complete lifespan.

5e backgrounds allow for a lot more versality than 3e classes at level 1.
3e prestige classes allowed for a lot of customizability... after they restrained you for a lot of levels.
3e multiclass worked fine... except for caster classes...
4e multiclass system was very limited in what it offered.

Yes, you may look at the options and say: hey, we had all this... but for now I am sticking to: 5e is very simple and still leads to a lot of builds. They may not be mechanically too much apart from each other, backgorund benefits are non combat related, but they allow you to realize a lot of concepts with some mechanical background, without juggling too much with feats and prestige classes and skillpoints...

 

[Corpsetaker]

I imagine it depends what warm up and practice exercises you went through during your last rest. Practicing for one type of activity and then doing another has a very decent chance of leading to someone injuring themselves and, worse, not performing the activity you switch to properly.

I'm afraid not.

People who know multiple styles of martial arts actually blend them together all the time unless they are doing something officially for that particular martial art.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm afraid not.

People who know multiple styles of martial arts actually blend them together all the time unless they are doing something officially for that particular martial art.

I don't think it's exactly implausible that the rules impose a limit on the number of martial maneuvers you can have prepared at any given time for balance reasons, and then explain it by saying "you have to keep practicing these maneuvers to stay fresh with them; change your practice routine and you fight with a different style". I mean, you could also ask why a wizard has limited spells when obviously there's nothing preventing him from saying magic words and making hand gestures as many times per day as he wants - the text explains it as limited spell energy, but in the final analysis it's for balance reasons.

If I were going to implement a martial maneuver mechanic on such a basis, though, it wouldn't be short-rest-based. Long rest or even longer. You can't practice up in an hour.

On a related note, one thing I've never seen implemented that might be interesting is for the fighter to behave like a wizard in his ability to collect fighting styles. No hard level-based limit; if he finds a new style, he can learn it with just a time (and perhaps money) investment. That seems to me like it would better fit the archetype of the martial master traveling the world to learn.

 

[tyrlaan]

To be frank, the whole disassociated mechanics things just sounds like blowing smoke to me.

If the game rules have a sentence or two in them to tell you how a power rationalizes into the fiction then it's "associated", but if they don't have said sentences, then it's disassociated?

I don't really want to get into when the term was coined or why, but I struggle to understand how it's a legitimate criticism of any game mechanics. Especially when one of the strongest defensive arguments for 5e is "you're the GM, make it work/figure it out", why doesn't the same apply to "disassociated" mechanics?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If the game rules have a sentence or two in them to tell you how a power rationalizes into the fiction then it's "associated", but if they don't have said sentences, then it's disassociated?

I don't really want to get into when the term was coined or why, but I struggle to understand how it's a legitimate criticism of any game mechanics. Especially when one of the strongest defensive arguments for 5e is "you're the GM, make it work/figure it out", why doesn't the same apply to "disassociated" mechanics?

Dissociation is a valid concern. The idea is that in a roleplaying game, the player's thought process should resemble the character's thought process. Stuff that is relevant to the player's decisions should map to stuff that is relevant to the character's decisions. Now, it's true, a well-written justification can smooth over a lot of dissociation. But the further you stretch, the harder that becomes. It's like if there's a plot hole in a book or movie: a good writer can fix some of it, but it's hard for a really big plot hole, and the fixes become more obviously just fixes.

That's why when I talked about justifying a fighter resource system in my previous post, I began by stating that it seemed plausible. But if I'm wrong about that and some players find it implausible, then the mechanic would be dissociated for them. The would feel like what they know their characters can do does not match up with what their characters believe they can do.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

To be frank, the whole disassociated mechanics things just sounds like blowing smoke to me.

If the game rules have a sentence or two in them to tell you how a power rationalizes into the fiction then it's "associated", but if they don't have said sentences, then it's disassociated?

It's not quite that easy--e.g. Vancian spellcasting takes more than a few sentences to explain; ideally you have them read Mazirian the Magician, and even then they may find it unsatisfying. But the basic idea is that when there's a direct correspondence between player decisions and character decisions, roleplaying is happening. So game mechanics should not encourage players to step out of character, which is why I'm so ambivalent about the 5E Lucky feat. Mechanically it is so temptingly powerful that I love it, but I also hate it because it dissociates the player from the PC. Lucky is really hard to deal with in character.

 

[Celtavian]

Well that puts me in my place. Obviously the bookshelves full of books I have are just for show, because I can't have read any of them or I'd understand that magic is the supreme force in absolutely every situation and nothing better than it has ever appeared anywhere no sir. Presumably the literature I posted up thread last time you made this ridiculous assertion don't count for some reason.

By the way, what level is Merlin? Is it just barely possible that the higher level character is the one who can achieve more? Can you conceive of that possibility, or are we stuck with a situation where every novice hedge wizard is automatically more powerful in every way than the greatest (non-magical) hero of the kingdom? Because Magic!

I keep hearing the level excuse. Magic can always do more than the mundane. That's why it's magic.

I imagine it depends what warm up and practice exercises you went through during your last rest. Practicing for one type of activity and then doing another has a very decent chance of leading to someone injuring themselves and, worse, not performing the activity you switch to properly.

I cannot suddenly know a different martial style because I warm up differently.

 

[RotGrub]

Yes. Magic is supposed to be more powerful at similar things than mundane skills. Isn't that why you call a magic user to do things mundane skills cannot accomplish? What would be the point of wizards or magic users in fiction if the same things could be accomplished by mundane means?

When your siege engines can't break down the castle wall, call the wizard to create a hole in the wall or beguile the gate warden to let you in. If you can't get two kings to make peace, call a wizard to force them to make peace through magic. If you need to find out where the evil monster's lair is, call a seer to find out. Isn't that the point of magic users in fiction? To do things that the mundane characters in the world can't do with their usual means, so you call in Mr. Mysterious Powerful Wizard guy to do it?

Remember Dragonslayer? They sent a contingent to acquire a wizard to kill the dragon. In Lord of the Rings it was a wizard that guided the hands of the heroes to destroy Sauron. Merlin put Uther and Arthur on the throne of England and acquired them both Excalibur.

If you read books, you should know the answer to your question. It is a resounding yes, magic is supposed to do things a mundane skill can do, but much better.

I totally agree.

In fact, I'd argue that in a world with magic matrial classes would also be using it. They might not access magic directly as a spell caster, but they certainly would access it indirectly via items. Of course, the fighter's use of magical items was an actual class feature in 2e.

 

[Celtavian]

Not really, if you look at what Celtavian & I were actually saying. The best-balanced version of D&D - as even the most virulent h4ters will agree (often because they hate balance) - was 4e. The edition that had the most radically overpowered casters (and thus, by contrast, worst-balanced fighters, in spite of an elegant fighter class design) was 3.x - it brought us the Tier system, afterall. Again, not a lot of debate about it, though a case could be made for 0D&D to be worst-balance by virtue of being least-evolved.

Celtavian decided to group the 5e fighter with all the fighters except the 3e (and possibly, 0D&D), to say 'among the best.' While I, contrarily, excluded only the 4e fighter, to put the 5e 'among the worst.' It's not a large set, so when you say 'among the...' implying the top or bottom several, you're only excluding the bottom or top one or two.

The 5e fighter is about on par with the 2e fighter: high-DPR making it powerful in straightforward combats, proficiencies giving it something to do (if nothing that everyone else can't just as easily do) outside of combat. It's a bland, one-note design, but that note's a loud one.

The 2e & 5e fighter's exceptional DPR make them strong contributors in combat, so not among the worst-balanced examples of the class. The gap, OTOH, between them and the robust class balance of 4e, which included the fighter, is huge. Ranking second or third notwithstanding.

You mean in breadth of power? The 5E fighters breadth of power is less than the wizard, but better than pass editions. Proficiencies were weak in 2E.

Part of the reason the fighter's breadth of power is better is because the wizard's breadth of power is less as well. It's much, much harder for the wizard to use magic to replace class abilities in 5E. Spells don't do as much for as long in this edition. They don't have spells for every little thing. The Concentration mechanic and lack of disposable magic means he can't just pick up a wand or a scroll to fill in the gap. The limited number of slots makes wizards very stingy about spending spell slots.

Yes. 4E was the most balanced edition. And in my opinion, the most flavorless. Balance leads to very little flavor in mechanics because when designing them it must pass through the class balance meter to ensure it is within the proper range. An excessive focus on balance is like an excessive focus on political correctness: It takes the flavor out of things and turns everything bland forcing everything into a narrow range.

Rather than balancing classes, 5e empowers the DM to maintain spotlight balance in play, making problems with classes less visible at the level of an individual campaign.

Dissociative mechanics was made up out of whole cloth by the Alexandrian in an early "review" (h4ter manifesto) of 4e, before the book was even on the shelves. The definition is a moving target, but most of them amount to little more than a picky way of looking at abstraction. All RPGs necessarily have a lot of abstraction, and a lot of mechanics that fit one definition or another of 'dissociative mechanics,' depending on where the goal-posts have been moved, different mechanics qualify.

Prior to 4e, no one complained about or even noticed 'dissociative mechanics,' even though RPGs were full of mechanics that would meet the definitions once they were contrived. In 5e, there's very little complaint about 'dissociative mechanics,' even though there are quite a few mechanics that qualify.

Yes, it's a h4ter talking point. No, bringing it up doesn't advance any discussion.

Though, it's worth considering that the 'dissociative mechanic' attack, was very consistently directed at mechanics that helped balance the classes, particularly by improving the effectiveness of the martial classes, in 4e.

I don't consider dissociative mechanics an important reason to dislike 4E. I think that is a term that overcomplicates the reasoning process when talking about games.

Spotlight balance is necessary in any game like D&D including 4E. Even in a balanced game like 4E some players are just better at using the mechanics than others to be effective whether they spend more time reading on how they work or just have a more intuitive understanding of the underlying math. The min-maxers in my group still found the best powers and class/race combinations in 4E. Though the math wasn't as whacky as 3E/Pathfinder, their superiority still showed up in game requiring me to balance the game with the spotlight.