D&D 5E Fixing the fighter (I know...)

[Tony Vargas]

I get that this issue is your bugbear

Nope, no need to make it personal.

but I don't think it's material here. What matters is that players have qualitatively different expectations of Conan's capabilities and Heracles' capabilities, not their source.

The qualitative difference is their source. Heracles and Conan are both strong. One is strong because his dad is Zeus, the other because he's a genetically-superior specimen descended from Atlanteans, raised in a life of constant struggle and hardship in a fantastic antediluvian world imagined by a early-20th century Texan with some singular ideas about history and barbarism vs civilization. The quantitative difference is how strong.

Well, yeah, but that's not what we're talking about here, either. Conan isn't low level.

Seemed like it came up. Also, that was only an aside, to the main point, that not-supernatural does not need to imply mechanical inferiority. Indeed, if a supernatural and not-supernatural alternative are weighted equally, they're rather obligated, by basic non-sucky game design, to be of comparable utility.

I think it's exactly what it needs to be to be the Good With Weapons Guy. There's no need to change or obviate that. But you're right that if you try to make Heracles with it you're asking too much of it.

All classes are pretty good with weapons - they all get the same bonus to hit with proficient weapons, for instance. A number get extra attack and a few get Combat Styles to choose from. I'm afraid that a class that were hypothetically /just/ Good With Weapons Guy would already be obviated. And, no, it's not that a concept is asking too much, it's that the class doesn't deliver.
If you ask Wizard to deliver on Gandalf, it's able to mimic everything he actually displayed in LotR by level 5 (fighting the Balrog being conveniently off screen), and gone on to exceed it, substantially - same is true with most mages of legend, they don't display a fraction of the breadth D&D casters routinely do. But fighters and the like run up against limits in D&D long before fully emulating their sources of inspiration - and those sources aren't even always fantasy/myth/legend, they can even come up short trying to emulate historical figures.
For classes that are, by definition, equally weighted player choices, that's an issue.

 

[Undrave]

Wrestling with the embodiment of death to save his friends dying wife? I think there were some in there but they werent usually early career.

I meant that in the post he quote I wasn't talking about the supernatural things. I was talking about being Cunning, Politically Savvy and even an Engineer. Nothing supernatural, but more than the 'Dumb guy with a pointy stick that dabbles in stuff".

 

[Garthanos]

The qualitative difference is their source. Heracles and Conan are both strong. One is strong because his dad is Zeus, the other because he's a genetically-superior specimen descended from Atlanteans

The I got a fancy bloodline is something every major player in Arthurian Legend has too... this is not some rarity amongst the heroic whether its Draconic (whole real world royalties claim this) , Divine, Fae, Atlantean or Numenorean or that of the Aesir or Olympian... the panorama is extraordinary.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The I got a fancy bloodline is something every major player in Arthurian Legend has too... this is not some rarity amongst the heroic whether its Draconic (whole real world royalties claim this) , Divine, Fae, Atlantean or Numenorean or that of the Aesir or Olympian... the panorama is extraordinary.

All over, yeah, if you're not of some part-human or legendary culture, you're at least of an ancient & noble lineage or have some great destiny or /something/.

They may not cast spells, or be supernatural, but heroes of myth & legend are seldom ordinary.

In 0e & 1e, I think, more than 2e & 4e, there as an assumption of ordinariness, that adventurers were just dime-a-dozen hopefuls, scrounging in the ruins, until they got lucky, got a lot of exp & magic items under their belts, then, y'know, you could name 'em. In 2e, the story focus brought them out more as heroes at least in concept, in 4e, of course, you started as heroes and could have an Epic Destiny. 5e's Apprentice Tier argues back-to-ordinary - all classes having supernatural powers, not s'much…?

 

[Garthanos]

Heroes would be Fighter++ or Rogue++ I suppose. They are competent and capable of a wide variety of stuff (probably you'd pick some packages for specialization/flavor). Companions would get much more focused abilities like bestial strength (think Chewbacca or Ookla the Mok) or magic. Companions would also come with a severe limitation or deficiency to which Heroes are not subject.

Gilgamesh and Enkidu should be your first example.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A lot of stuff came in early like that (Rogues, Rangers, Dwarfs, etc). It made sense at the time. A good portion of the players still looked upon characters as more like game-pieces in a tomb-robbing/murderhobo not-quite-board game, so statting up abilities to differentiate them made sense. For playing through adventure stories...not so much.



A friend of mine and I sometimes kick around the idea that (if you wanted to get closer to adventure fiction, not necessarily myths) a game should have two superclasses: Hero and Companion.:

Heroes would be Fighter++ or Rogue++ I suppose. They are competent and capable of a wide variety of stuff

Sounds like Fighter + Rogue, really.

Companions would get much more focused abilities like bestial strength (think Chewbacca or Ookla the Mok) or magic. Companions would also come with a severe limitation or deficiency to which Heroes are not subject.

Heroes might get a 'tragic flaw,' though. Something they can overcome, now & then... or, y'know... finish their Story as a Tragedy.

For additional narrative/story interest...Heroes each have a Heroic Task to pick (Destroy Vader, unite the clans, fend off the orc invasion, avenge my parents, whatever.) Possibly they should have a villainous Archenemy or Nemesis to represent the task.

OK, you're get'n into Champions! disads here. Psych Lims, Hunteds...

A Hero cannot die until this task is at the point of climax/success, perhaps not even then unless its a fight with the archenemy. Fall off a cliff? Nope, the hero is dangling from a root. Overwhelmed in battle? You're not left to die on the battlefield, you were knocked out or pinned under a horse. Whatever happens, the hero cannot die. At worst he will be captured and taken back to the villainous archenemy. Maybe even include some kind of lasting "Trauma" that the hero has to work off later, kind of like a mini-Heroic Task.
Instead of XP, there is a list of Heroic Achievements. Achieve one and you level up, done. Companions only level up when their associated hero does. While heroes always improve with level. Companions also get closer to retirement, and so they weaken or flanderize as the story goes on.

That's sound'n familiar....

 

[FrogReaver]

Seemed like it came up. Also, that was only an aside, to the main point, that not-supernatural does not need to imply mechanical inferiority. Indeed, if a supernatural and not-supernatural alternative are weighted equally, they're rather obligated, by basic non-sucky game design, to be of comparable utility.

Perhaps - but when people say supernatural they don't mean supernatural that's on equal footing with what a natural person can do - they mean super natural that's more powerful than what a natural person can do.

Which is partially where the notion comes from that if bring up the natural fighter to be on par with supernatural warriors that you are essentially making the natural fighter supernatural in some sense.

The only possible solution to this is either ignore it as an issue - and maybe it isn't for you. Or there needs to be some major consolidation of martial non-magical classes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Consider this: D&D has already implicitly agreed that the game doesn't have room for a skill monkey class whose only real benefit is his skill benefits. None exist! The rogue now is nearly as defensive, and nearly as offensive as a fighter while still being the skill monkey class!

If we have already admitted the rogue needed brought up to almost the fighters combat level - how much longer can we sit back and argue that the fighter doesn't need brought up to almost the rogues skill level

 

[Tony Vargas]

If we have already admitted the rogue needed brought up to almost the fighters combat level - how much longer can we sit back and argue that the fighter doesn't need brought up to almost the rogues skill level

Based on the current hp discussions?
I'd estimate at least 40 years.

Perhaps - but when people say supernatural they don't mean supernatural that's on equal footing with what a natural person can do - they mean super natural that's more powerful than what a natural person can do.

Maybe not on the same footing as a normal person. But, if you're going to offer a supernaturally-empowered class or race along side nominally "natural" ones (I mean, there's nothing supernatural about a half-orc, per se, but they don't exist), as equally-weighted character build choices, they'd better /balance/, somehow.

Which is partially where the notion comes from that if bring up the natural fighter to be on par with supernatural warriors that you are essentially making the natural fighter supernatural in some sense.

Supernatural is not power level. Levitating a match stick with psychokinesis is supernatural. Bench pressing 1000lbs is not.

The only possible solution to this is either ignore it as an issue - and maybe it isn't for you. Or there needs to be some major consolidation of martial non-magical classes.

There's many possible resolutions, some are pretty reasonable:
You can simply not weight the supernatural options the same: it costs 4 levels to gain one level of wizard, for instance, so Gandalf, at 5th, and post-trilogy Aragorn, legendary monarch of all he surveys, at 20th, are equals at the top of their respective classes.
You can simply not put them both in the same game: everyone plays a mage (or cleric or druid or other full Tier 1 caster) in Dungeons & Dweomercrafters. Everyone plays a fighter Dominions & Dragons.
You can simply present them as alternatives, but not to eachother: You play a fighter, rogue, scholar or other mundane class for X levels until you qualify for a supernatural Advanced class.
You can simply make up the difference in DM force: Narrate success for the fighter constantly, drop perfect items for him at every turn. Have assassins attempt to murder the wizard more times/day than he has shield spells - every day.

Others are really out there and could never even be attempted in the context of D&D:
You could design balanced classes.

 

[Hussar]

Repeating the same falsehood over and over doesn't make it any less false. Those things aren't the only things that can make a person heroic. You've already been provided example after example of a fighter doing heroic things no real person can hope to do (not just soloing monsters), so why do you keep repeating this falsehood that a fighter can "NEVER be mythic"?

Honest question. Why do you keep repeating it?

And yet, funnily enough, everyone else seems okay with it and can follow my point. So, no, I don't think I'm repeating falsehoods, nor bringing up things that aren't under consideration. Perhaps if you tried to actually follow the argument instead of simply launching attacks on me personally, then it might help things move forward.