D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[CreamCloud0]

As @mellored said on the last page, these all seem like less of a stereotypical Fighter move and more of a stereotypical Rogue move (especially a Swashbuckler Rogue). I can easily picture someone like Indiana Jones or Malcolm Reynolds pulling these stunts, and both of those two characters I would classify as "rogues."

i don't think those are actions that should be exclusive to any class, "oh you're not a rogue? sorry you don't know how to taunt, trip or shove someone, not even as a trained martial warrior", let the fighter be adequate, good maybe even.

 

[Stalker0]

D&D is what created a lot of those video game tropes. Making the whole game mother-may-I is much less likely than making more explicit options, which has already been done in previous editions and for current edition subclasses.

There is a trade off though, one I have seen played out in many a game. The more you codify actions, the more players stay in the box and lose creativity.

I'll use my recent game as an example, which uses Level Up maneuvers. The fighter types do have a lot of cool tricks they can do, but I also notice my players are much more "ok how do I get in manuever X" as opposed to "so what if I tried this crazy thing...."

Unfortunately there is no perfect answer. Your not wrong that "Mother May I" does exist, and codified actions reduces it. Likewise, it seems to stunt player creativity. Where you fall on the spectrum is different than others, but no where on teh spectrum is truly "wrong", its just a playstyle preference.

 

[Sacrosanct]

i don't think those are actions that should be exclusive to any class, "oh you're not a rogue? sorry you don't know how to taunt, trip or shove someone, not even as a trained martial warrior", let the fighter be adequate, good maybe even.

Agreed. The systems I'm working on now, anyone can attempt those maneuvers. Fighters in general (and other class specialties like swashbuckler) just have to pay less of a resource cost to do it.

 

[Incenjucar]

There is a trade off though, one I have seen played out in many a game. The more you codify actions, the more players stay in the box and lose creativity.

I'll use my recent game as an example, which uses Level Up maneuvers. The fighter types do have a lot of cool tricks they can do, but I also notice my players are much more "ok how do I get in manuever X" as opposed to "so what if I tried this crazy thing...."

Unfortunately there is no perfect answer. Your not wrong that "Mother May I" does exist, and codified actions reduces it. Likewise, it seems to stunt player creativity. Where you fall on the spectrum is different than others, but no where on teh spectrum is truly "wrong", its just a playstyle preference.

Codifying actions means that every table can use them, otherwise those actions are functionally homebrew. This is why spellcasters get half the PHB devoted to codifying their actions.

 

[Clint_L]

What you seem to be advocating for, and correct me if I am mistaken, is a sort of "spell list for fighters," except based on physical effects rather than magic.

What we have now is a system where spell-casting classes can do a lot of things, especially at higher levels, and non-spell-casting classes can do fewer things, but tend to be very good at them. Fighters and barbarians, for example, are really good at delivering damage and at taking a beating. Then sub-classes add some variety and complexity, depending on your choice.

I think a lot of players like that some classes are simpler. I do. I find managing spell lists a bit tedious so I'm not usually looking for a lot of that in my play experience.

 

[Incenjucar]

You don't need a spell list for simply adding effects.

"As part of your attack, you can use 1 resource to add one of the following effects to a successful hit:
Blinded
Deafened
Prone
Stunned
Pushed 0-10 feet
Etc."

 

[Gorck]

Is this "Mother May I" concept some sort of derogatory term? Not every single action needs to be written down in the rules. I like that players are free to attempt maneuvers off the tops of their heads. If you tell the DM your fighter (or other character) would like to pick up sand and toss it in the enemy's eyes, the DM should work with the player to figure out how to make that happen ("OK, make an Acrobatics check"). If it seems too ridiculous, the DM can always set the DC to "very hard" but at least there's a slim chance of success. Unless the DM is a complete jerk, then they should be working with the players to create an interesting story.

 

[Incenjucar]

"Mother May I" is any scenario where whether or not the player can do something is entirely up to DM fiat rather than being something codified in the rules, making it something that will vary table by table rather than being a reliable strategy that can be considered for builds and character concepts.

This can be especially vexing to rely on if you play at public events where you may see a different DM every time.

Again, spellcasters get half the PHB to codify magic, which in theory can do anything!

 

[Emberashh]

Is this "Mother May I" concept some sort of derogatory term? Not every single action needs to be written down in the rules. I like that players are free to attempt maneuvers off the tops of their heads. If you tell the DM your fighter (or other character) would like to pick up sand and toss it in the enemy's eyes, the DM should work with the player to figure out how to make that happen ("OK, make an Acrobatics check"). If it seems too ridiculous, the DM can always set the DC to "very hard" but at least there's a slim chance of success. Unless the DM is a complete jerk, then they should be working with the players to create an interesting story.

People have issues with Mother May I because their DMs to varying degrees don't get the improvisational nature of the non-magic parts of 5E and the system doesn't help them understand and apply it properly.

The core gameplay loop of 5E is that the DM presents the world, the Players react, the DM adjudicates.

This same loop is whats meant to be used when the rules do not elucidate some subsystem (like magic) for doing something.

 

[CreamCloud0]

look, compare it like this: if fireball wasn't codified in the rules but you tried to recreate it's effects with MMI in play it'd probably go something like this:
"hey GM, i want my wizard to use their magic to shoot a giant explosion of fire at that group of enemies over there"
"uh sure, there's no rules for that but um, cross off a fourth level spell slot and gimme two arcana checks?"
[rolls dice] "26 and 17"
"you create a 10ft radius of fire that deals 2d8 damage to the bandits, it's over 100ft away so your accuracy is slightly off and you miss hitting a few of them"

that's how it feels for martials when they try to do anything not codified and have to rely on GM judgement.