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

[Minigiant]

Why is it a save and not an attack roll? Why the DC is flat ten and not based on any of the fighter's statistics? Why does this deal way more damage per hit than the fighter's individual attacks? Why doesn't their strength or magic weapon bonus affect this damage?

Save to minimize rolling. Because some people will say making a single attack against every enemy would be "unrealistic" or "overpowered". Same for the rest but if you want

Fighter's Cleave​

At level 8, you can use your action to make melee attacks against any number of creatures within reach of your weapon, with a separate attack roll for each target. Roll your weapon's damage die of your attacks three times for the damage. At level 12, you can roll your weapon die four times and at level 19 you can roll five times.

Fighter's Cleave​

At level 8, you can use your action to cleave through foes. Any number of creatures within reach of your weapon must make a Dexterity saving throw or take damage equal to three rolls of your weapon's damage die. The DC of this attack is your proficiency bonus + your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice) . At level 12, the damage increases to four rolls of your weapon die and at level 19 five rolls.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The post you quoted demonstrates clearly it is not.

Again, it’s not a question of the intrinsic act, it’s a question of the degree to which the act becomes impossible to a normal human.

Running is mundane. Running 21mph is Olympic level athleticism, but still mundane. Running 30mph is faster than any known human has ever run, but could still be considered mundane. Heroic, but not necessarily superhuman. 40MPH and we’re getting into the realms of fantasy…but at just “twice as fast as a fast runner”, it’s arguably still merely “heroic”

Running 200mph unassisted is not mundane. (At least, not for a human.)

In this instance we're talking about a dash action, typically 30 feet worth of movement for a PC. That's 10 yards. 1/4 of the 40-yard distance Offensive Linemen (!) in the NFL run in 5 seconds.

Sure, in a straight line, but 5 seconds to cover 4 times the distance (and they cover those first 10 yards in 2 seconds or less)

Honestly, it wouldn't even be that hard to proof of concept. Imagine Jerome Bettis with a greatsword on an inside run play, blade first.

Like, we're totally in 'a difference of taste' territory here, but I don't think some of these things are as far from normal human capabilities as you are suggesting.

Edit: and this is assenting that human capabilities are an appropriate baseline when most of the races in the game aren't even human.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, from the OP...

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),




Is cutting someone's head off with a sharp implement like a sword or ax necessarily magical? The same way twiddling your fingers & chanting to conjure a fireball out of nothing is magical?
No. It's something a normal person can do.

Degree doesn't really matter, the act of decapitation via a weapon is mundane for purposes of the thread.


And that's essentially saying you can't have a high level 'mundane' warrior, because it can never match the power of high-level supernatural.

My answer to that is, "so be it". Go supernatural at high levels or go home.

 

[Minigiant]

What optional rules? The fighter has several attacks, and is likely to kill an orc they hit. Ergo they cleave though several orcs per turn. That the rules do not contain word "cleave" doesn't change that.

The fighter is not likely to kill an orc without the optional rules of feats, magic items, or multiclassing.

2d6+5 is not higher than 15.
1d10+7 is not higher than 15.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But, actual "cheating" is about the actual tactical and strategic layer of a game. Insofar as a game actually cares about this (and they don't all do that), what matters is that the particular mechanic in question engages with and preserves one or both of these layers. And the 4e minion rules, and the AD&D originals, do so as long as there isn't any user error. Neither of these mechanics are there exclusively for color or genre tropes. They are both of those things, but they get there via engagement with and preservation of that tactical and strategic layer of the game.

Minion rules don't exist in isolation. So like in 4e, you have to consider them holistically along with the rest of the game engine and the best practices instruction on how to generate a compelling tactical and strategic layer of the game along with strong color and coherent genre tropes. So you start with (1) Encounter Budget > (2) Battlefield Array > (3) Team Monster Roster within those Encounter Budget constraints and synergizing both within Team Monster and with respect to the Battlefield Array.

Minions are a part of that last piece and they can easily be either (a) the pivot point for threat in a conflict (due to what they can do alone, do to what they can do in concert with respect to other components of the roster or the terrain, or due to how they can make difficult a Win Con alternate from "kill all the HPs dead") or (b) merely an amplifier of threat due to their interactions/synergy with the rest of the roster or the terrain. Which is to say, when using the system as its design, Minions are multivariate threats that engage with the tactical and strategic layer and that must be legitimately overcome to achieve whatever the Win Con is of the combat (whther that be "Kill Team Monster" or "Escort NPC Safely" or "Escape the Waves" or "Stop the Ritual" or "Exorcise the Demon Before it Kills the Host" etc).

None of that is going to make me like minion rules (or the rest of 4e's combat engine for that matter). The comment above about Flee Mortals and actual verisimilitude-based in-universe lore? That has a shot.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh, I fundamentally disagree. You can find a years long bibliography scattered across various forums where I continue to assert that supernatural or magical abilities are and must be strictly superior to mundane abilities as a matter of definition, particularly given the design limitations of TTRPGs, but you're right to indicate it's off topic.

I'd argue that the design consideration of a TTRPG - particularly that they be balanced - demand the opposite. Indeed, ironically, EGG chose the 'Vancian' system of magic that became so wildly OP for fear casters would otherwise be unable to keep up with fighting men.

Would that were true, but you only have to go back a few posts for this direct counter example:

That's not a counter-example, it's just someone denying the premise of a + thread.

Mundane abilities can (and to be appropriate for the higher levels, arguably must) scale above and beyond norms, but cannot do so indefinitely before undermining the aesthetic.

Only if your aethetic is based on power, rather than on what's magical or supernatural. Like I pointed out, a supernatural ability is unmoored from any standard, it can be as arbitrarily strong, or weak/limited, as it needs to be to balance it with more grounded game elements.

The mundane Fighter isn't a color palette for a set of level appropriate abilities

It should be. Because that would make the game better. That's the point of the thread, really, what's a vision of the 'mundane' fighter that could work along side the uber-casters of D&D?

Yeah, that's the whole reason they're easier to design for. You can set whatever arbitrary limits you want for a magic system, and then back justify those mechanical limits as features of the power-source. It's a significantly less restrictive aesthetic, so you simply don't have to work as hard to make it work

So, really, the sensible design approach is to build up the 'mundane' options to be what you want from the game, then peg the supernatural elements to balance with them.
The opposite of how fixing the martial/caster gap is usually approached: "oh, don't nerf the casters! buff the martials!" ... "NO! Not Like That! OXMG! my verisimilitude!"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The fighter is not likely to kill an orc without the optional rules of feats, magic items, or multiclassing.

2d6+5 is not higher than 15.
1d10+7 is not higher than 15.

With great weapon fighting it is about the average damage. But sure, not every hit will kill an orc. Some do, some don't. And you're not guaranteed to hit either. But the point is that you can cleave through several orcs, not that you're guaranteed to. Your suggestions do not guarantee success either, and I don't think a rule should. We roll the dice for a reason after all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd argue that the design consideration of a TTRPG - particularly that they be balanced - demand the opposite. Indeed, ironically, EGG chose the 'Vancian' system of magic that became so wildly OP for fear casters would otherwise be unable to keep up with fighting men.

That's not a counter-example, it's just someone denying the premise of a + thread.

Only if your aethetic is based on power, rather than on what's magical or supernatural. Like I pointed out, a supernatural ability is unmoored from any standard, it can be as arbitrarily strong, or weak/limited, as it needs to be to balance it with more grounded game elements.


It should be. Because that would make the game better. That's the point of the thread, really, what's a vision of the 'mundane' fighter that could work along side the uber-casters of D&D?


So, really, the sensible design approach is to build up the 'mundane' options to be what you want from the game, then peg the supernatural elements to balance with them.
The opposite of how fixing the martial/caster gap is usually approached: "oh, don't nerf the casters! buff the martials!" ... "NO! Not Like That! OXMG! my verisimilitude!"

Why would anyone learn magic if it was no better than doing things the old-fashioned way?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Save to minimize rolling. Because some people will say making a single attack against every enemy would be "unrealistic" or "overpowered". Same for the rest but if you want

Fighter's Cleave​

At level 8, you can use your action to make melee attacks against any number of creatures within reach of your weapon, with a separate attack roll for each target. Roll your weapon's damage die of your attacks three times for the damage. At level 12, you can roll your weapon die four times and at level 19 you can roll five times.

Fighter's Cleave​

At level 8, you can use your action to cleave through foes. Any number of creatures within reach of your weapon must make a Dexterity saving throw or take damage equal to three rolls of your weapon's damage die. The DC of this attack is your proficiency bonus + your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice) . At level 12, the damage increases to four rolls of your weapon die and at level 19 five rolls.

I still don't understand why this would have different damage formula than your normal attacks. Why strength and magic bonus affect those but not these? Why do the dice get multiplied here but not with the normal attacks?

In any case, this suggestion seems pretty broken to me, especially with a reach weapon. It is a really powerful at will AOE effect around you that doesn't hit allies.

 

[Pedantic]

That's not a counter-example, it's just someone denying the premise of a + thread.

Only if your aethetic is based on power, rather than on what's magical or supernatural. Like I pointed out, a supernatural ability is unmoored from any standard, it can be as arbitrarily strong, or weak/limited, as it needs to be to balance it with more grounded game elements.


It should be. Because that would make the game better. That's the point of the thread, really, what's a vision of the 'mundane' fighter that could work along side the uber-casters of D&D?

I think you've got it exactly backwards. This wouldn't need to be a + thread if what you're asserting was the case. Mundane is a design limit, not a descriptor, and the goal is to figure out what the high levels ought to look like with it in mind. If that were not true, then the problem is trivial. You'd just select an appropriate range of damage, toss in some mobility options, throw in some X/day "hard CC save for lesser CC" on hit, make sure you code all the abilities as sword strikes, and be done.

Unfortunately, that's unacceptable to a significant portion of the audience, so there's a much harder design question in sorting out what they will accept, why certain abilities bother them, and why other ones don't, and how you validate the fighter fantasy in the process.

So, really, the sensible design approach is to build up the 'mundane' options to be what you want from the game, then peg the supernatural elements to balance with them.
The opposite of how fixing the martial/caster gap is usually approached: "oh, don't nerf the casters! buff the martials!" ... "NO! Not Like That! OXMG! my verisimilitude!"

Oh for sure, if we were allowed to start from scratch that would be easier. I would contend it makes sense to pick the most limited part of your design as the balance point for the rest of it, but we have the high levels we have, so lets figure out just how far we can get with jumping, whirlwind attack, an aura of menace and a lot of physical toughness.