D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[Mirrorrorrim]

Which is one of the reasons magic armor is rare in my campaign.

I actually like giving magic armor to warriors (at the appropriate rarity level, of course). In D&D (with decent magic item rewards) I find it to be essential to their badassdom. If the warriors have AC 20+, monsters will miss more often, clanging off of armor, or being dodged, and contributing to their survival. It's one of things that makes them stand out from casters. I make sure many monsters target the "in-your-face" warriors so those warriors are tanking effectively. It's part of the fantasy to get all that attention and survive it. That is why I love a Champion Fighter who the DM lets do their damn job instead of finding ways to nerf or minimize their badassdom.

When paper-thin casters get targeted, they are afraid, especially when monsters hit so hard in modern 5E design. I like when warriors can trust their defenses to be less afraid. If the math says the bad guys hit everybody most of the time, the warriors don't feel very tough or tanky. It takes them out of the fantasy.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

1HP, average damage, doesn't explode if they save vs AoEs.

Man, look at all that kludge. Ten whole words. eleven if you count acronyms, which you know we do not in this house.

It is not about number of words, it is about having to use this sort of feature that doesn’t represent anything that exists in the fictional world to patch the fact that your combat system doesn’t scale properly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1HP, average damage, doesn't explode if they save vs AoEs.

Man, look at all that kludge. Ten whole words. eleven if you count acronyms, which you know we do not in this house.

Average damage is totally an ugly kludge, 5e would never do something like that...

Tho, TBH, I think a big, mostly unspoken, objection to minions is that they don't just politely vaporize when fireballed. In 4e, minions had a trait that they didn't take damage from attacks that missed them, because 4e resolved all attacks with the attacker rolling to hit some defense, weapons generally AC, Fireball &c generall REF, with 1/2 damage on a miss not being exactly rare, and of course, because "1 hp" was an abstraction (like all hp, really). Minions weren't actually made of glass in the fiction, they were just taken out of the fight by any successful attack roll.

 

[Quickleaf]

Given: There is an option for a mundane fighter class. Mundane is defined as "no inherent magical ability built into the core class". "Magical ability" excludes being better at something a normal person can do (so jumping, strength, etc. are all on the table), but does include reality-bending supernatural effects, such as illusions, evocation, regeneration, teleporting, conjuration, etc.

Jumping. I want to focus on just jumping for a second, and how this can help formulate designing a mundane high-level fighter.

In real life, the record for a non-pole running high jump is 2.45 m (or 8 ft and 1/2 in) set by Javier Sotomayor (Cuba) on 27th July, 1993. (source: High Jump World Records) This is measured from starting position of the feet to ending position of the feet, so it's very precise/clinical, and doesn't account for adventuring scenes where you're reaching to grab something, but it's a starting point.

In current 5e D&D you can running high jump up to 3 + your Strength modifier. And with ability scores capping at 20 (+5), that puts the maximum mortal running high jump at about Sotomayor's accomplishment – 8 feet.

Compare that to a Strength 10 (+0) character enchanted by the 1st-level Jump spell (the creature's jump distance is tripled for 1 minute), and that average character is running high jumping 9 feet – exceeding what the best fighter can do! Geez!

No feats increase high jump AFAIK & Champion's remarkable athlete only applies to long jump. OK. So "take existing feat/subclass" counterarguments don't apply.

So if we imagine that a high-level mundane fighter should at least be high-jumping MORE than what an average strength character could with Jump spell – which seems to me like a very modest to low bar to start with – how do we design this?

There are two big categories that we can approach it from: (1) Hard number design (which 5e favors for jumping), and (2) Soft narrative design (which is generally more "indie" and disfavored in mainstream 5e). So I'm going to proceed with #1 assuming that will be most accessible to the most number of folks...

Jumping high doesn't seem like something that should be EXCLUSIVELY high level, but it does seem like something that should be BETTER at high level. So maybe using Proficiency Bonus as built-in scaling mechanism would be a solution?

Whenever a fighter makes a jump, they add their Proficiency Bonus in feet to the total distance jumped.

So a Strength 18 (+4) fighter makes a running high jump at 1st level (+2 prof), and they are reaching 9 feet – exceeding what Sotomayor accomplished and equal to what an average strength character achieves with a Jump spell. That seems reasonable...

Then the fighter, now Strength 20 (+5) makes a running high jump at 13th level (+5 prof), and they are reaching 13 feet! An incredible distance! In some buildings this might be a leap up into the rafters to engage in swashbuckling swordplay. Narratively, it could either be described many ways - sheer superhuman strength, parkour running up/pushing off a post, assisting the jump with a sword or staff, performing a rapid muscle-up, etc. There are still ways to narrate it within the bounds of human potential.

For me, the problem here is the change feels microtransactional – it's this itty bit of design for one area of the game that is isolated from everything else. That is the kind of design 5e favors though. For example, this doesn't allow a 5th+ level fighter to reach the cloud giant's castle in the sky, whereas the 5th level wizard is dropping Fly to reach it - this is a drawback of "hard numbers" microtransactional design, because in a more narrative solution the fighter might spend a resource point (e.g. Hit Die or "Mettle" pool) to explain how they reached the cloud castle.

EDIT: The other issue is on the adventure design side, because to realize the proposed fighter's high jumping benefit, that's a narrow bandwidth of feet that designers need to be aware of. For example, a 10 foot high jump in a 1st-4th level adventure will be probably be unachievable unless you have a Strength 20 fighter or a Strength 12+ character enchanted with Jump spell. Whereas an 8 foot high jump will be achieved by a Strength 16 fighter or Strength 10+ character enchanted with Jump spell - definitely a height which will allow a fighter to showcase their coolness. I've yet to see any kind of public design documentation for 5e adventures spelling out that level of detail, and my hunch is that it's the kind of thing easily lost in the mix. So you have this itty bit of design...and no guarantee that it will even come up in a given adventure.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I know preferences differ (as this thread displays!), but for me, here's how I make the difference:

"Mundane" super abilities are those things that someone can do now, but just at level better than we see now. Things like jumping, blocking attacks, accuracy, speed, etc.

It does not include things that couldn't be done now, even at a lower level. So a high level fighter jumping 30 feet? Sure! People can jump now. Can a fighter cleave a ship in half with a sword? No, because nothing even close to that is possible now. Can a fighter block an axe attack with a small dagger? Sure, people can block weapons now. And so on.

I think I lean this way because the improvement is measurable. That is, if a one of the best people in the world can do something at X value, then I can say a high level fighter can do X+Y (or whatever). However, if you can't do something now and there isn't a way to measure it, I can't measure a level of improvement past it as comparison.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Average damage is totally an ugly kludge, 5e would never do something like that...

Tho, TBH, I think a big, mostly unspoken, objection to minions is that they don't just politely vaporize when fireballed. In 4e, minions had a trait that they didn't take damage from attacks that missed them, because 4e resolved all attacks with the attacker rolling to hit some defense, weapons generally AC, Fireball &c generall REF, with 1/2 damage on a miss not being exactly rare, and of course, because "1 hp" was an abstraction (like all hp, really). Minions weren't actually made of glass in the fiction, they were just taken out of the fight by any successful attack roll.

I always roll for damage.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I always roll for damage.

One of my friends always uses average damage when he DMs, and I don't really enjoy it. I find it takes away a lot of the unexpected/swingy feel of combat that I prefer. It makes combat less organic to me.

 

[Oofta]

Jumping. I want to focus on just jumping for a second, and how this can help formulate designing a mundane high-level fighter.

In real life, the record for a non-pole running high jump is 2.45 m (or 8 ft and 1/2 in) set by Javier Sotomayor (Cuba) on 27th July, 1993. (source: High Jump World Records) This is measured from starting position of the feet to ending position of the feet, so it's very precise/clinical, and doesn't account for adventuring scenes where you're reaching to grab something, but it's a starting point.

In current 5e D&D you can running high jump up to 3 + your Strength modifier. And with ability scores capping at 20 (+5), that puts the maximum mortal running high jump at about Sotomayor's accomplishment – 8 feet.

Compare that to a Strength 10 (+0) character enchanted by the 1st-level Jump spell (the creature's jump distance is tripled for 1 minute), and that average character is running high jumping 9 feet – exceeding what the best fighter can do! Geez!

No feats increase high jump AFAIK & Champion's remarkable athlete only applies to long jump. OK. So "take existing feat/subclass" counterarguments don't apply.

So if we imagine that a high-level mundane fighter should at least be high-jumping MORE than what an average strength character could with Jump spell – which seems to me like a very modest to low bar to start with – how do we design this?

There are two big categories that we can approach it from: (1) Hard number design (which 5e favors for jumping), and (2) Soft narrative design (which is generally more "indie" and disfavored in mainstream 5e). So I'm going to proceed with #1 assuming that will be most accessible to the most number of folks...

Jumping high doesn't seem like something that should be EXCLUSIVELY high level, but it does seem like something that should be BETTER at high level. So maybe using Proficiency Bonus as built-in scaling mechanism would be a solution?

Whenever a fighter makes a jump, they add their Proficiency Bonus in feet to the total distance jumped.

So a Strength 18 (+4) fighter makes a running high jump at 1st level (+2 prof), and they are reaching 9 feet – exceeding what Sotomayor accomplished and equal to what an average strength character achieves with a Jump spell. That seems reasonable...

Then the fighter, now Strength 20 (+5) makes a running high jump at 13th level (+5 prof), and they are reaching 13 feet! An incredible distance! In some buildings this might be a leap up into the rafters to engage in swashbuckling swordplay. Narratively, it could either be described many ways - sheer superhuman strength, parkour running up/pushing off a post, assisting the jump with a sword or staff, performing a rapid muscle-up, etc. There are still ways to narrate it within the bounds of human potential.

For me, the problem here is the change feels microtransactional – it's this itty bit of design for one area of the game that is isolated from everything else. That is the kind of design 5e favors though. For example, this doesn't allow a 5th+ level fighter to reach the cloud giant's castle in the sky, whereas the 5th level wizard is dropping Fly to reach it - this is a drawback of "hard numbers" microtransactional design, because in a more narrative solution the fighter might spend a resource point (e.g. Hit Die or "Mettle" pool) to explain how they reached the cloud castle.

I never understand why people care all that much about things like this. The rules are incredibly simplified over the real world, they don't need to be particularly accurate just in the ballpark. Jumping rules in particular take no consideration of what the PC is carrying, what they are wearing, what other conditions in the environment could hamper their jump. The jump rules are the base minimum someone can jump all day long. Then you compare to someone who devotes years of their life to one thing to become the best at the high jump the world has ever seen.

Meanwhile, the DM can call for an athletics check to exceed jump distances. Admittedly details about how far you can exceed the base jump is limited and suggestions would be nice, but the option is there.

 

[Quickleaf]

I know preferences differ (as this thread displays!), but for me, here's how I make the difference:

"Mundane" super abilities are those things that someone can do now, but just at level better than we see now. Things like jumping, blocking attacks, accuracy, speed, etc.

It does not include things that couldn't be done now, even at a lower level. So a high level fighter jumping 30 feet? Sure! People can jump now. Can a fighter cleave a ship in half with a sword? No, because nothing even close to that is possible now. Can a fighter block an axe attack with a small dagger? Sure, people can block weapons now. And so on.

I think I lean this way because the improvement is measurable. That is, if a one of the best people in the world can do something at X value, then I can say a high level fighter can do X+Y (or whatever). However, if you can't do something now and there isn't a way to measure it, I can't measure a level of improvement past it as comparison.

I never understand why people care all that much about things like this. The rules are incredibly simplified over the real world, they don't need to be particularly accurate just in the ballpark. Jumping rules in particular take no consideration of what the PC is carrying, what they are wearing, what other conditions in the environment could hamper their jump. The jump rules are the base minimum someone can jump all day long. Then you compare to someone who devotes years of their life to one thing to become the best at the high jump the world has ever seen.

Meanwhile, the DM can call for an athletics check to exceed jump distances. Admittedly details about how far you can exceed the base jump is limited and suggestions would be nice, but the option is there.

Right, I agree with what you're both saying here. My long example was showing the design challenge of how to take just one small thing that has come up repeatedly – high level mundane fighters should be able to jump higher – and illustrate the problems with tackling it in the way 5e handles jumping rules with hard numbers.

You can break away from any real life references, I get that, but then it's a question of degree – 30 feet high jumps? Are you the player still feeling grounded in the mundane fighter fantasy of "what a person can achieve with skill, wits, and blade alone"? 50 foot high jumps? 100 foot high jumps? Where is your line? Hard number design demands we establish an answer and some kind of reason for that answer.

Or you go in the direction @Oofta is describing, more narrative a la "Athletics checks to exceed jump distances", but then the rules are silent and you're getting closer to narrative mechanics waters. And inevitably that's going to start losing some 5e players as it's bucking the microtransactional trend of 5e's class/character design. Narrative mechanics design demands we consider both player tolerance (how far in a narrative non-numerical direction can we push this?) AND how the proposed rule plays with existing rules (or the lack thereof).

Basically, I'm using high jump as a microcosm of the big picture design challenge with a mundane high-level fighter. You can apply this line of questioning to almost any proposed change to the class, looking at tension between hard numbers vs. narrative design, whether the design change preserves the "mundane/grounded" fantasy or stretches it too much, whether the change is interesting/meaningful or too microscopic/microtransactional, etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I always roll for damage.

Wait, some people don’t? I assumed it was just there to make gauging how dangerous the attack is easier, not to actually directly use…