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

[pemerton]

A proper combat system should be able to produce this effect without changing the monster stats, but simply having the stats of the monsters and the stats of the levelling PCs calibrated so that the relative power difference will emerge.

<snip>

I want the game world that seems to have an objective existence and I want rules that reflect that.

Having monster stats be "atomic" (as they mostly are in AD&D) rather than "relational" (as they mostly are in 4e D&D) has nothing to with whether or not the game world has an "objective" existence. The hobgoblin phalanxes in my 4e game, marching in formation and maintaining discipline even as paragon heroes cut their way through their ranks, were as verisimilitudinous as anyone's 15th level D&D game is going to get.

As to what counts as a "proper" combat system, I don't know of any RPG or wargame that meets your criteria for that. AD&D certainly doesn't - it uses a special rule for fighter attacks-per-round vs less than 1 HD foes (this is just like a minion rule, except it changes the PC stat block rather than the NPC/creature stat block); and it uses Spells & Swords or Battle System or similar for mass combat.

3E doesn't: the "peasant rail gun" is just one illustration of the point. And as far as I understand it, 5e permits the "peasant rail gun" also.

 

[Minigiant]

This of course assumes that most people are not already satisfied with the fantasy the current fighter rules provide. Which still, as we know, is just your opinion, not a fact

WOTC has adjusted the fighter in the playtest, added fighter options in TCOE, and change how they did monsters in the last few books.

The whole "that's your opinion" ignores what WOTC has done.

It doesn't though. It requires the fighter to able to do sixty points of damage with one hit. A rule that allows them to do this is certainly easy enough to write. It just is a question of whether that would be balanced and would it be good for the game.

I would probably start by allowing fighters to forgo their multiple attacks to do one powerful attack instead. If required a condition such as advantage to do, or consumed some limited resource, it could be even more powerful

I have already said 3 times, the best option is to lower monster HP.

At this point you are hitting a strawman.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't understand what codification has to do with anything. 4e is an edition that relies on GM judgement in encounter building, and it has many pages of exposition, advice and instruction on the technical aspects of doing this.

What would be codified would be something like this: "If a character whose level is at least ten more than the challenge rating of the enemy, hits that enemy with an attack, and the enemy is not immune of the damage type of that attack, the enemy is reduced to zero hit points, no damage roll needed."

Minion rules are not like that. They are supposed to represent the characters being more powerful than the enemy, but what "more powerful" actually means is not codified, it is arbitrary.

 

[pemerton]

I mean it is just the same ogre, but for arbitrary gamey reasons it is represented by different stats.

The reason is not arbitrary. It is represented by different stats because the hero who is fighting it is much more powerful than it.

This is not very complicated.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

WOTC has adjusted the fighter in the playtest, added fighter options in TCOE, and change how they did monsters in the last few books.

The whole "that's your opinion" ignores what WOTC has done.

Did they give them ability to oneshot ogres? Oh, they didn't, they just did some minor finetuning.

I have already said 3 times, the best option is to lower monster HP.

At this point you are hitting a strawman.

Yes, you have said that. You do that, but as monsters not dying fast enough is not a problem anyone besides you has, WotC probably is not going to do that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The reason is not arbitrary. It is represented by different stats because the hero who is fighting it is much more powerful than it.

This is not very complicated.

No, but it is undesired by some.

 

[pemerton]

That is one way to stat it up, if you have the agenda to have your hero churn through enemies quickly. I would prefer a different way personally.

The reason I have that "agenda" is because that is what the fiction dictates, given that the fiction is about a mundane but Conanesque-in-power fighter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The reason is not arbitrary. It is represented by different stats because the hero who is fighting it is much more powerful than it.

This is not very complicated.

But it is confused way to do it. We already have stats that measure the creature's power, and they go up as characters level. Having the enemies also downscale (when the GM thinks they should) to represent the same thing is just messy. If you want high level characters to kill ogres with ease, then just give them stats that let them do it. No need to variable ogres, no need for GM to ponder what version to represent the same fictional entity they should use.

We also don't know what happens to ogres when they face foes of varying power? To whom they scale then? This just is an inelegant and kludgy way to do things.

 

[pemerton]

But once a setting fact is established, it remains such for everyone (including the DM) until it is changed diagetically.

Yes. Once it is established that the Ogre is powerful (compared to the village blacksmith) but laughable (compared to the demi-god) that remains established.

This has no implication, in itself, for how the Ogre is statted. The version of D&D that I'm familiar with that best expresses the fiction I just described is 4e D&D, where the Ogre is statted as an Elite (when being fought by the mid-Hero PCs) and as a minion (when being fought by the upper-Paragon PCs).

For completeness: that an Ogre has 1 hp or 100 hp or whatever is obviously not a setting fact (unless your setting is some fourth-wall breaking comedy thing). It's a mechanical state of affairs that is only relevant to game play.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, you have said that. You do that, but as monsters not dying fast enough is not a problem anyone besides you has, WotC probably is not going to do that.

It's not monsters die fast because WOTC wants the DM to waste time managing 4d6 goblins when the level 20 party is fighting the Tarrasque.

Let's talk about another one.

The high level fighter's unarmed strike is too weak. Fighters should be able to kill stuff with punches. But like the poor monk, unarmed Strikes are poorly supported. The high level fighter has to take a feat and still takes a dozen punches and 5+ turns to punch something out