D&D 5E [+]What does your "complex fighter" look like?

[Neonchameleon]

Unfortunately, if it works mechanically like a spell, people are going to think of it as a spell. No amount of telling people that's technically incorrect is going to change that. If you want martial abilities that operate like spells do in D&D, in my opinion that's the price.

Then you just have to not give them the same format as spells.

Besides, as far as I can tell the only people who think that are people who started with 3.5 or earlier - and that makes a tiny fraction of the 5e base.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then you just have to not give them the same format as spells.

Besides, as far as I can tell the only people who think that are people who started with 3.5 or earlier - and that makes a tiny fraction of the 5e base.

The only people who think what?

Also, what kind of format are you thinking of that would make said abilities not spells?

 

[Neonchameleon]

There is some cool stuff in 4e but when I looked recently, despite what some people imply, the 4e Fighter was really mundane, even at high levels. Fun and tactical and had some very cool powers but it's permission space (better then current 5e) was still pretty limited (it worked fine in high level 4e because of the changes to other classes but not as sure in 5e)

Indeed. The non-mundane stuff that wasn't Come And Get It (and its upgraded version) came from the Paragon Path and Epic Destiny.

The only people who think what?

The only people who think limited use abilities are spells.

Also, what kind of format are you thinking of that would make said abilities not spells?

Said abilities are not spells unless they are actually spells. There is no format that would make them into spells unless it actually made them into spells, end of story.

The question is what sort of format would make people stop making the objectively false claim that any limited use abilities are spells.

But as far as I know no one claims e.g. dragon breath - or for that matter dragonborn breath - is a spell. So if you were to use that sort of format it would work for the vast and overwhelming majority of people.

 

[Reynard]

Then you just have to not give them the same format as spells.

Besides, as far as I can tell the only people who think that are people who started with 3.5 or earlier - and that makes a tiny fraction of the 5e base.

I think an even smaller fraction of the 5e base is probably people that care about that issue. That's not meant to minimize the issue, just to say that's not a good argument.

 

[Celebrim]

That said, I would ask you not to characterize anything that involves a limited effect or narrative effect as a "spell".

I totally understand that this is a hot button issue that was one of the big often thoughtless attacks that became a trope in some arguments. But at the same time, I don't use that term lightly or necessarily even derogatorily. There is a meaningful disagreement over this area that has really meaningful impact over the style of game you play. There isn't a right way to do this, there are just tradeoffs between things you lose and things you gain when you decide to do mundane things with the same sort of logic that underlies say a BECMI or OSR spell description.

So in short, I am fully aware of both sides of this debate and all the nuances of the people making the position. And as full disclosure, let me go a little tangential and compare the SRD version of 'Spike Stones' to what I wrote up in my house rules for 3.Xe to show you where my aesthetics on this actually are:

This is the SRD: Spike Stones :: d20srd.org

And here is my take on the same spell:

Spoiler

"Rocky ground, stone floors, and similar surfaces shape themselves into a bramble of random razor sharp stone points that impede progress through the area and deal damage. Each square so effected counts as difficult uneven terrain and any creature of tiny size or larger that enters an area of stone spikes or spends a round fighting while standing in such an area may step on one or more spikes. In such situations, the spikes make an attack roll (base attack bonus +6) against the creature. For this attack, the creature’s shield, armor, and deflection bonuses do not count. If the creature is wearing hard soled shoes or similar footwear, it gets a +2 armor bonus to AC. If the spikes succeed on the attack, the creature has stepped on one or more spikes and suffers 1d6 damage. Stone spikes count as +1 magical weapons for the purposes of overcoming DR.

Any creature that takes damage from this spell must also succeed on a Fortitude save to avoid injuries to its feet and legs. A failed save causes the creature’s speed to be reduced to half normal for 24 hours or until the injured creature receives a cure spell (which also restores lost hit points). Another character can remove the penalty by taking 10 minutes to dress the injuries and succeeding on a Heal check against the spell’s save DC.

Creatures within the area of effect of the spell at the time of casting automatically receive attacks and lose their dexterity bonus against such attacks if they were flat-footed. Creatures that fall prone in the area effect receive a normal attack (that does not bypass armor) with a +2 circumstance modifier on the check, and if this attack succeeds they take double damage. If the creature falls onto this surface from height, use the normal rules for falling onto long spikes.

The spike growths are colored so that they blend into the background effectively, and they are not easily seen and practically invisible until a character is almost on top of them. Characters within 5’ of a field of spike growths are entitled to a DC 20 spot check to observe the danger. Otherwise, they do not observe their presence until they first impale themselves. Charging or running creatures automatically fail this check, being in any event unable to stop their headlong rush in time. On the other hand, a character moving very slowly and carefully and probing the floor ahead (as with a pole or staff) requires only a DC 10 search check to notice the unusually hard projections."

Now you should see the trade-offs I'm making. My description is much wordier and has a lot more qualifiers. The part that is obviously offensive to me about the SRD version is this: "In addition, each creature moving through the area takes 1d8 points of piercing damage for each 5 feet of movement through the spiked area." My rewrite is essentially saying, "That's far too reliable of narrative force than even a spell which can theoretically do anything should have." One reason for that is if a spell-caster has that much reliable narrative force that isn't qualified by anything, then there is no way a martial character can keep up.

So yes, you can create post-hoc justifications for almost any mechanic and that will keep the mechanic simple and easy to run and adjudicate. But you do lose something when you apply that sort of design to a game, and obviously I think the tradeoff isn't worth it. Other people might disagree and accept that tradeoff.

To me it's a spell when you have to jump through enough narration hoops to explain why it is happening that it strains credulity. If you hit a basically mindless, fearless Iron Golem with an attack that automatically knocks it 5' back, to me you are going to struggle to explain this without appealing to the physics of the attack. In the same way that not everyone running through a field of stone spikes ought to take the same unqualified damage, any foe struck by a hammer should not have the same need to vacate the space willingly or unwillingly. And if a PC can reliably knock back an Iron Golem 5', then surely the PC can knock a goblin back 20' with the same hit? If we are needing repeatedly to ignore the substance of the fiction, the way a Diablo like video game decides to ignore ammunition for class balance reasons and let ammunition users spam unlimited attacks just like everyone else, then everyone involved needs to be frank and up front about the aesthetics they are going for and not shy away from "but that's maneuver is basically just a spell". Because that's a real aesthetic with real meaningful differences in a system whether we are going to look the other way or deal with them.

For me I don't want a system that decides to fix the martial classes by saying, "Well, we can just give them spells." It's logical, but it feels like the sort of answer you get from a hostile AI that you ask to help you end human suffering and the AI decides the best way to do it is get rid of humanity. Yes, it is a solution, but it isn't one that I find acceptable.

So given that I find that even a spell shouldn't have unlimited reliable narrative force, can you understand why when someone writes a maneuver that reads something like, "Once per day, you can on a successful attack knock back the foe 20", that it is functional to say, "That's a spell". Whether it is a problem that that is a spell is a different matter, but there really is an aesthetic here that needs to be agreed on. What has priority when determining resolution, the games fiction or the games mechanics?

There are definitely ways though to write mundane manuevers in ways that prioritize the game fiction by matching mechanics to the situation, they are however unavoidably fiddlier than systems that make the fiction adapt to the mechanics no matter what the mechanics are. For example, if the foe got some sort of save against being knocked back of some sort that depended on size and strength, then I'm now happy. That's not a spell. We can appeal to mundane fiction to explain it without straining credulity.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Unfortunately, if it works mechanically like a spell, people are going to think of it as a spell. No amount of telling people that's technically incorrect is going to change that. If you want martial abilities that operate like spells do in D&D, in my opinion that's the price.

it's not 'works like a spell' though... it's if it works at all. Just look at half the ranger spells (maybe slightly less then half) could have been martial abilities. D&D took too many short cuts putting everything into the magic subsystem.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The question is what sort of format would make people stop making the objectively false claim that any limited use abilities are spells.

But as far as I know no one claims e.g. dragon breath - or for that matter dragonborn breath - is a spell. So if you were to use that sort of format it would work for the vast and overwhelming majority of people.

I mean I can't take the argument that they are spells serious to start, but I posted some up thread, they can be written exactly like battle master maneuvers

"sunder armor, lower the AC of target by 2" isn't really any more detailed then any spell. or "Leading the attack, 1/sr this action allows you to make a melee attack, if you hit the creature any body that attempts to hit the target before the end of your next turn (so you too next turn) gains +1d4 to hit" or "Warlords favor 1/sr this action allows you to make a melee attack and if you hit the creature grants advantage to the next attack targeting it" or "Tide of iron, as a bonus action before an attack the creature you are about to attack makes a Str save DC XX or be pushed 5ft, you then move into the space he just left and make your attack" or "Wolfpack tactics you make an attack, but before or afterwards an ally adjacent to the target gets to disengage and move up to 1/2 there speed if they wish as a reaction" or "Sly flourish, make an attack if you hit add your cha mod as additional damage" or "Hit and run make an attack, if you move this turn the target you attacked can not use reactions against your movement" or "Furious Smash 1 creature in melee range make a Con save DC XX if they miss it they take weapon damage equal to your str or dex mod, the next creature to hit them before the end of your next turn deals bonus damage equal to your cha modifier"

,

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me it's a spell when you have to jump through enough narration hoops to explain why it is happening that it strains credulity.

And to me it's only a spell if the wizard says the magic words and/or makes the right gestures. If someone turns into a werewolf that strains credulity but it is not a spell unless the reason they turned into a werewolf is that the wizard turned them into a werewolf with polymorph.

Even 3.X had a more reasonable understanding of things than this, breaking abilities down into Extraordinary, Supernatural, and Spell-Like. And every single character with more than ten hit points is capable of extraordinary abilities and possibly supernatural ones. And this is why I really object to the "everything is a spell" take. If everything that strains credulity is a spell then thanks to the square-cube ratio dragons can only fly because they say the magic words and giants are all, without exception, sorcerers.

If you hit a basically mindless, fearless Iron Golem with an attack that automatically knocks it 5' back, to me you are going to struggle to explain this without appealing to the physics of the attack.

You're also appealing to the physics of the iron golem. Which has to transfer its weight to take a step meaning that it is unbalanced and on one leg. And if you push it at the right time when it is unbalanced then it will drive it backwards. Can just anyone do that? No. Being that good is extraordinary. But fighters are extraordinarily good at fighting.

In the same way that not everyone running through a field of stone spikes ought to take the same unqualified damage, any foe struck by a hammer should not have the same need to vacate the space willingly or unwillingly.

You do realise that you can put the 'don't need to vacate' rules on the golem? I mean 4e had dwarves able to resist forced movement and reduce the distance moved. And part of the golem's thing is resisting things.

And if a PC can reliably knock back an Iron Golem 5', then surely the PC can knock a goblin back 20' with the same hit?

No - because it (assuming we're talking about Tide of Iron) is an unbalancing push, not a case of "batter up". If I bunch my shoulder behind my shield and take three steps forward through where the goblin is standing the goblin might have to take five steps back because it has shorter legs than I do. But it's not going to miraculously take 30 steps back. It's going to be pushed back as far as I go forward. And then, because it's a push when I stop pushing the goblin stops moving.

If it is a case of batter up against a normal goblin then we're dealing with a goblin corpse. And D&D has never really cared about what you do with corpses.

If we are needing repeatedly to ignore the substance of the fiction, the way a Diablo like video game decides to ignore ammunition for class balance reasons and let ammunition users spam unlimited attacks just like everyone else, then everyone involved needs to be frank and up front about the aesthetics they are going for and not shy away from "but that's maneuver is basically just a spell".

If we are not ignoring the substance of the fiction and deciding that hits don't do wounds then we need to dump hit points as a mechanic. D&D has larger than life characters.

But we aren't dealing with spells. We're dealing with a game world that runs under action movie physics. Which is a real aesthetic. And a common one. And one that does not normally involve people casting spells. Is everything that happens in a Mission Impossible or Fast and Furious movie that wouldn't work in the real world to you someone casting spells?

 

[TwoSix]

And to me it's only a spell if the wizard says the magic words and/or makes the right gestures. If someone turns into a werewolf that strains credulity but it is not a spell unless the reason they turned into a werewolf is that the wizard turned them into a werewolf with polymorph.

To me it's a spell when you have to jump through enough narration hoops to explain why it is happening that it strains credulity.

Personally, I don't agree with either definition. Being a "spell" has nothing to do with the game fiction, it has to do with how the mechanic is presented by the rulebook.

Spells in D&D are one of the ur-techs of the game, they've existed as a named block of player-facing discrete rules text going all the way back to 1974. When you introduce another type of mechanic that's formatted the same way, especially if it has a level, a range and targeting info, people are going to call a thing that looks like a spell, a spell. The fiction behind the ability is entirely irrelevant, because people aren't using "spell" as a term to refer to fiction. They're referring to a specific game mechanic and playstyle.

Heck, that concept is so ubiquitous that most clickable abilities in CRPGs (and even non-RPG games) are called spells, and invoking them is called "casting". I mean, in Starcraft spaceships that can generate an EMP pulse as a special ability are called "caster units".

 

[HammerMan]

Or looking at a 3rd party company's take on the class. Sometimes another RPG company working under 5e's OGL can produce a version of your favorite class that appeals to your take on what a Fighter could be.

The problem is that 3pp are hit or miss. And a lot of DMs I know refuse to look through them becuse they don’t want to balance and sanity check everything PCs could bring to the table.