D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[pemerton]

I guess I don't understand where this expectation originated.

From players' expectations of board games, of war games, etc. In war games, when sides aren't equal then typically the victory conditions will be different across sides (metagaming!).

In any game that posits meaningfully different roles, those roles are almost never balanced. In any given team sport, some positions are more important than others, and some require more skill or ability than others. In Command and Conquer, some units are better than others. In miniatures wargames, some pieces are better than others.

Sports aren't a very good comparison for a range of reasons. Furthermore, in purely social sports play, positions tend to be rotated across players so that all get a go! (Ars Magica takes this approach as an RPG.)

In wargaming, as I noted victory conditions will be modified to reflect different-strength sides.

 

[Obryn]

I guess I don't understand where this expectation originated. I mean, I can't think of any genre fiction where there's any semblance of balance between different different types of characters. Nor am I aware of any other rpgs that emphasize that premise to the extent we're talking about here. The idea that the choice to learn how to use magic or to pursue adventuring without it should be equal in an rpg (not the same, just equal) seems to be almost exclusively confined to a portion of D&D players.

The expectation isn't from a genre of fiction; it's from an acknowledgement that we're sitting around a table playing a game.

And I'd argue that "other RPGs" largely avoid the issue by either (1) not having classes, or (2) doing a better job of balancing whether or not it's a stated goal.

If we were playing Lord of the Rings (a touchstone for most D&D players), no one would complain that wizards and rangers aren't equal, let alone the commoners at the center of the story.

Well, let's analyze this a bit. Yes, Lord of the Rings is iconic, but part of the reason that it works is that there aren't many parts where those characters of disparate power levels are competing for spotlight time.

Lord of the Rings has a few pretty major divisions. We start out (after Bilbo's party) with a group of peasant hobbits of little skill exploring together. Then they meet up with a fancy DMPC; the opposition they face in the Nazgul is of the kind where Aragorn's basically on equal footing with the hobbits. Later on, after traveling through Moria, they end up splitting up into approximately "balanced" parties - you have Merry and Pippin going off to play with Ents; Frodo and Sam going through Cirith Ungol and Mordor; and Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli following after Merry and Pippin. These are pretty good divisions I'd say, and Gandalf is largely either pushed completely out of the story, kept to the sidelines, or hanging out with the dunadan/elf/dwarf trio who are the closest matches to him in ability ... even given he's an obvious NPC . So ... the main way LotR handles these sorts of tension-killing god-characters spoiling the narrative is through keeping them either out of the story or among other characters similar in potency - and challenged appropriately.

(Honestly, though, while I think Middle Earth has some great RPG potential, I don't think the main narrative of the Lord of the Ring series is very good fodder for a group of seven to nine players. There was a pretty hilarious webcomic that more or less made this point.)

Well, no one's arguing that point. I do, however, wonder if you're implying that prior to 4e combat didn't work (for everyone, for some people, or even just for you). I mean D&D has been going for quite a while without striving for or achieving 4e-style balance, and yet has been balanced in other ways and for other purposes. Was it wrong to do so?

Or are you merely suggesting that incremental balance improvements are part of the natural evolution of the game (which I agree with).

As I've said elsewhere, I think that both RC D&D and 1e AD&D are better-balanced than 3.x, barring a few outliers like Unearthed Arcana. But I can only speak for myself here - the caster/noncaster disparity in 3.x and its derivatives most certainly didn't work for me. I've alluded several times to my long-mourned Arcana Evolved game which was awesome for a few levels and then collapsed under a pair of spellcasters once they got to about 7th or 8th level. We made it last until ... 11th? 12th? I don't remember. But it was a nightmare for me to prepare for and run, and largely unfulfilling to the other players who got to spectate.

I don't know about natural evolution or whatnot; I simply know what I like in a game, and what I expect from D&D nowadays.

-O

 

[pemerton]

I was vague in my post, but when I said basic, I meant things that don't show up in a class description, but (mostly) in the combat chapter: the language used to describe what any character is, where he is, how he is doing, what he can do.

So your view is that D&D should have rules to generate effects that aren't described in the combat chapter?

Or that it should have more rules for non-magical PCs to inflict conditions/effects described in the combat chapter?

Also, are you saying that 4e has too much or not enough of this?

 

[Ahnehnois]

So your view is that D&D should have rules to generate effects that aren't described in the combat chapter?

No. I'm saying the combat chapter should describe more things. Even, for example, the Trailblazer combat chapter, which only adds a little bit to the 3.5 combat chapter, adds new action types and many new possibilities.

Or that it should have more rules for non-magical PCs to inflict conditions/effects described in the combat chapter?

Yes. But those rules should be in the combat chapter (e.g. PF combat maneuvers as a starting point).

Also, are you saying that 4e has too much or not enough of this?

I think too much of it is contained in class abilities.

 

[Sunseeker]

If we were playing Lord of the Rings (a touchstone for most D&D players), no one would complain that wizards and rangers aren't equal, let alone the commoners at the center of the story.

Legolas clearly outshines Gandalf in a number of situations. Gandalf's magic, while powerful, is used sparring, most of the time he hits people with his stick or later, his sword. I'd wager he put too many points into dual-wielding two-handers(staff and greatsword) and while Legolas did nothing but enhance his bonuses to shooting orcs.

Boromir is pretty typical for a fighter, lots of armor profeciencies, sword and board, good charisma though, not much in the way of skills though. Aragon is clearly your typical rogue-fighter hybrid(ranger hardly represents him by it's more recent emobiments), lots of skills, good with weapons, lighter armor.

But NONE of these guys are the same level either. Aragorn is near 80 years old and only in middle-age...barely, Legolas is nigh on a thousand, Gandalf is immortal, and Frodo is lucky if he's 20! Boromir has done nothing but fight his whole life, same as Aragorn, if anything they're probably the closest comparison. Legolas is obviously a gestalt, epic-level ranger. I mean he stabs people with arrows and then shoots them at another enemy. Frodo is what, a 0-level commoner?

None of these characters are equal because there's absolutely no common starting point. The only ones that start off as commoners who get levels in something later are Merry and Pippin who probably get a few levels in fighter by the end of the story.

But even beyond that, if we were playing Star Trek, the engineer class would be able to do anything with time, the command officer class would tell everyone else what to do, and the security officer class would just be good with phasers. If we were playing Law and Order, no one would complain that the lawyers are better than the police (or vice versa).

Scotty's biggest asset is that he lies. Oh sure he's a great engineer, but his whole "I can get it done in two hours instead of a day." is because(if I recall correctly) he multiplies his "how long it should take" time estimates by a factor of eight. If anything Scotty is a bard/engineer-type multiclass.

But you're missing the point. Noone is suggesting that Scotty should be as good with phasers as Riker is, nor should Spock be as awesome as engineering as Scotty. What people keep advocating is that when Riker becomes the awesome, dual-pase-rifle wielding awesome-master, Scotty is likewise so skilled with engineering he could fix a warp-engine with duct-tape and toothpicks and make McGuyver blush.

NEVER has anyone suggested that all characters should be equally as good at everything as everyone else. This is the "red herring" argument against balance from people who don't understand what's being advocated.

What people want is for Scotty's engineering to be so awesome, and Riker's tactics so amazing when, at the same level, both will be able to contribute to most situations fairly well. Riker may blast away at the Borg while rotating phaser-frequencies with his left nostril while Scotty can hotwire a communicator badge to control localized force-fields.

In such a case, both Scotty and Riker contribute to the fullest of their skills in defense of the ship against the Borg, but both do so in entirely different ways. We don't see Scotty able to make micro-black holes in the middle of engineering without damaging the ship or friends while all Riker can do is blast a phaser once or twice and do all of diddily.

The fact that a wizard, in theory could bend reality with his pinky, doesn't mean the best a fighter can do is whack somebody with a sword a little better. And that's the big complaint here. It's not just that people think it's OK that one guy contributes to the best of his abilities, but people think it's OK that another guy contributes to the least of their abilities. A well-trained fighter can do a whole heck of a lot more than hit someone, but classically, that's all the game mechanics have represented them as being capable of, even attempting combat maneuvers sucked because they had a low success rate, were useless against non-armed/armored monsters, had pathetically short durations, and did no damage at all.

The wizard on the other hand could traditionally lock down a foe, make them defenseless, and then trap them in a rain of acid, killing them in two rounds.

It's not a matter of contributing equally but in different ways, of even well in one situation but poorly in another. It's been a simple matter of the wizard being quite literally able to do anything and everyone else can suck eggs(except the cleric or the druid).

That's the story angle, but from a game angle the same is true. In any game that posits meaningfully different roles, those roles are almost never balanced. In any given team sport, some positions are more important than others, and some require more skill or ability than others. In Command and Conquer, some units are better than others. In miniatures wargames, some pieces are better than others.

You are citing some of my favorite genres and even specifically games, unless you know these things very very well, I am going full-bore on you here.

NEVER in CnC was there are unit strictly better than another unless it had an incredibly long build time and a high cost. Sure, the Mammoth tank was better than the basic tank...why? Because it cost 3 times as much and took quadruple the build time. Certain units are better at certain things, but nobody is arguing this shouldn't be the case. There is no single unit in any edition of CnC that can do everything better than any other unit, and the ones that perform specific tasks better than another are because they require more resources.

Which is the biggest failing in the whole fighter vs wizard issue. The fighter has few resources, but his costs are low. The Wizard has night unlimited resources...and his costs are low too.

And if you don't think team sports roles are balanced, you lack an understand of team sports. And sports is a perfect example of what we want to see between the fighter and the wizard. Lets say the defensive lineman is the fighter. Lets say the quarterback is the wizard. How do these two balance out? The quarterback has very specific limitations to his role, he can only move in certain directions, he can only perform a few tasks, unless he gives up his ability to throw(cast) and runs the ball(Tim Tebow did this a lot), so essentially, the Wizard loses his special powers and becomes a fighter. The lineman on the other hand has specific skills too, he's really good at fighting, but he couldn't throw the ball...and probably couldn't catch it either(that's other people's job, lets say the rogue).

Each of them perform specific tasks within the system, but none of the can do all the tasks at the same time. The problem with magic has traditionally been that it has few penalties and allows the user to do all the tasks at the same time, any time, every time.

So again, the expectation that two completely different D&D classes should be equal across all levels doesn't have much precedent. Again, I'd agree that it's a nontrivial portion that has this concern, but I just don't understand where this perspective is coming from, or why it seems to override other concerns so readily. I mean, I like when things are balanced, but only where a number of other goals are satisfied first.

Sure it does...if you ignore absolutely everything about anything you quoted above and just look at the fact that Scotty wears yellow and Riker wears red.

It isn't an absolute, but the 4e concept of class design is a big step towards "sameness". It's not at the point where everyone has the same mechanics and you just describe them differently, but it's closer to that by far than any other version of D&D, and that's jarring. The merits of that step are what we're discussing.

See, now here's an actual point and I feel it's true(even as a 4e fan), 4e uses the same mathematics and same underlying system for all it's "powers" for every class. Sure, some things are ranged, some are burst, some are melee, but overall you're right. But using the same system to create different results is only a step to sameness if you insist that different classes must use different systems or they are inherently the same. I mean by that argument the Wizard, the Cleric and the Druid are all essentially the same, while the Fighter, the Rogue and the Barbarian are also all essentially the same.

Which means we're back to the point I've made earlier and many times across this forum, is that if you look at it that way, that same mechanics even utilized to create different outcomes is the path to sameness, you really only need two classes: the fighting-man and the magic-user. That's IT. Every single other class can be represented by some variation to one of those two themes, or some mix of the two.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the expectation comes from a couple of areas. One is that a lot of fiction based on teams of whatever sort spreads out focus between the characters. That's really hard to do in a game if one character can mechanically overshadow others.

Character-driven storytelling. Okay, I get that.

It also comes from the fact that this is a game and a story, and therefore if I'm playing I want what I'm doing to matter both mechanically and storywise. Like I said before, if the wizard can do everything I can, or can do things in such a way that what I'm doing doesn't really matter, I'm not going to enjoy it.

Re: LotR, I'd argue Gandalf isn't a PC

Neither are most D&D wizards. Classes aren't just for PCs.

(or else is at a much higher level), and the commoners (presumably, you mean the hobbits?) would just start at a lower level than everyone else. The wizards are more powerful because they've more power (read:higher level), not because they're wizards. :/

Even if you leave the wizard quasi-deities out of the equation, to me it's pretty clear that Aragorn was better than Frodo ever is (mechanically) when he was the equivalent of 1st level. I don't get the sense that any amount of training would get the hobbits to the point of being as good at adventuring as a human.

So, it's not about equality at all.

Oh, good. Well, in that case...

I just want to be able to choose a character, and have that choice matter. In 3.x, I felt like I had to choose a spellcaster or it wouldn't, despite my preference for martially-themed characters. (As an aside, I also didn't like that martial classes were locked out of the stuff I found mechanically interesting - I prefer spellcaster in 3.x playwise, but the character concepts I wanted to play were all noncasters. In fact, I've tried several times to stat up noncasters as casters with a new coat of paint.)

At this point I'm hearing your experience. It completely contrasts with mine, but that's okay. Most of my players don't like playing casters, perhaps because of the bookwork involved but also because they don't like having to worry about running out of stuff. They also know that I'm a very proactive DM and I'll hit their weaknesses (such as d4 hit dice and crap saves) and that I won't tolerate overpowered spells. However, given different game conditions, things could be different.

I guess what I'm getting at now is that I think you could be satisfied by approaches other than the 4e approach, and that the 5e stuff we've seen thusfar (which doesn't have everyone on the same AEDU system, standard modifier, and roles) might work for you.

Finally, I /would/ say pre-4e combat (or, more specifically, 3.x/PF combat, that being what I'm familiar with) didn't work, at least from the DM side of things. Definitely for me, and evidently for a lot of other people. I ran a year-long Pathfinder campaign where I got tired of how difficult it was to make an exciting combat. There was a /very/ fine line between a combat the PCs would win within two rounds and one they'd lose in the same amount of time, and I'm talking before 9th level. It wasn't quite rocket tag, but it was pretty damn close. That's the sort of worry I want the game system to handle for me, and it's a lot harder if the game doesn't try to do at-level balance.

Hmm. That one I still don't get.

I think the CR/EL system is terrible, and I don't use it at all. I find that I have no trouble eyeballing a monster and getting an interesting and challenging battle. I wonder sometimes if people using that system (or the adventures that rely on it) creates problems I don't have.

 

[Arkhandus]

I agree with Falling Icicle's original post, and generally rely on houserules to some degree for that purpose in my 3.x games (making fighters more effective or more versatile). Fighters ought to be fun without necessarily being mystical or blatantly-reality-bending (beyond the minor degree of it already present in D&D with levels/hit dice etc.). It won't break my fun or my suspension of disbelief if a fighter cleaves a few hobgoblins in twain with one stroke, or clambers up a giant in seconds to stab it in the eye, or vaults high into the air with a polearm to slice the wing of a flying dragon (no moreso than that same fighter shrugging off a giant's greatclub with merely a scratch or light bruise, relative to his total HP, as he could already do in just about any edition of D&D). Though of course, fighters should still remain a fairly easy class to play, so many of their extraordinary feats of physical/martial prowess should probably be optional alongside simpler options (feats or class features) that just boost basic stats or the like.

I don't mind the idea of having feats available for acquiring certain magic tricks for limited use (I've tinkered with the idea myself before), but I don't share LostSoul's inclination to give fighters magical abilities directly (that's more like trying to make D&D into Earthdawn, Exalted, or Dragonball Z). If they wanna dabble in magic through a few optional feats or multiclassing, more power to them. I don't even mind having magical kits or optional class features available, in the vein of 2nd Edition AD&D kits. But in D&D it should be entirely possible and worthwhile to play a "mundane" fighter who simply excels in physical and martial prowess (and tactical/strategic matters for any fighters with good mental stats).

I'd rather see magical or quasi-magical reality-bending abilities (a la Book of Nine Swords, or wuxia/anime/manga-style superhuman martial arts capabilities) be purely optional for fighters, whether through feats or prestige classes or alternate class features or kits. Magic items can of course serve for some of those purposes, but should not have to be the only or primary recourse for a fighter who just wants to do some of the cool things a wizard does. Wizards will just continue to do more of it, and better, because it's their specialty the same way that a fighter specializes in kicking the crud out of monsters and NPCs.

I do prefer to see wizards and other casters with fewer spell slots or the like (and psionic manifesters with fewer power points), and I would like to see them use their wits and knowledge more (rather than relying on magic for everything). And I'd like spell levels to scale more linearly in power (or close enough). Fighters and wizards should be reasonably on-par in power and usefulness, and fighters should be able to take out enemy wizards when they need to. But it wouldn't be D&D without powerful wizards capable of amazing magical feats (starting out more humbly, more reliant on wits and careful preparations initially), and skilled fighters capable of (eventually) slaying dragons with nothing more than strength, skill, a good blade, and some good armor.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Scotty's biggest asset is that he lies. Oh sure he's a great engineer, but his whole "I can get it done in two hours instead of a day." is because(if I recall correctly) he multiplies his "how long it should take" time estimates by a factor of eight.

A factor of four actually (he's talking about a 2 hour repair and an 8 hour estimate; beginning of Star Trek V).

But you're missing the point. Noone is suggesting that Scotty should be as good with phasers as Riker is, nor should Spock be as awesome as engineering as Scotty. What people keep advocating is that when Riker becomes the awesome, dual-pase-rifle wielding awesome-master, Scotty is likewise so skilled with engineering he could fix a warp-engine with duct-tape and toothpicks and make McGuyver blush.

That's all well and good for me, but that's not enough for everyone, I daresay. Also, why are we mixing generations, and when did Riker start dual wielding phasers?

NEVER has anyone suggested that all characters should be equally as good at everything as everyone else.

Whoever wrote 4e did. Sort of. That is, in essence what the standard modifier is. A character of level X has X/2 bonus in everything, and only incremental modifiers to that based on individual choices. It's a big shift from the way numbers work in other editions.

What people want is for Scotty's engineering to be so awesome, and Riker's tactics so amazing when, at the same level, both will be able to contribute to most situations fairly well. Riker may blast away at the Borg while rotating phaser-frequencies with his left nostril while Scotty can hotwire a communicator badge to control localized force-fields.

Again, that's fine. As long as you're willing to accept that some weeks, one character will be more useful than the other.

In such a case, both Scotty and Riker contribute to the fullest of their skills in defense of the ship against the Borg, but both do so in entirely different ways. We don't see Scotty able to make micro-black holes in the middle of engineering without damaging the ship or friends while all Riker can do is blast a phaser once or twice and do all of diddily.

Well yeah, but what did Troi ever do?

The fact that a wizard, in theory could bend reality with his pinky, doesn't mean the best a fighter can do is whack somebody with a sword a little better. And that's the big complaint here. It's not just that people think it's OK that one guy contributes to the best of his abilities, but people think it's OK that another guy contributes to the least of their abilities. A well-trained fighter can do a whole heck of a lot more than hit someone, but classically, that's all the game mechanics have represented them as being capable of, even attempting combat maneuvers sucked because they had a low success rate, were useless against non-armed/armored monsters, had pathetically short durations, and did no damage at all.

Indeed, and that's why I've argued that fighters are screwed by the hit point system, as well as D&D's relative lack of active defense mechanics, and limited granularity of defensive statistics (i.e. only 3 saves and no medium saves, in 3e) among other things. Again, rather than give fighters new powers, rewrite the combat chapter to let them block blows, maim people, and that sort of thing, and then write whatever class abilities derive from those new possibilities.

It's not a matter of contributing equally but in different ways, of even well in one situation but poorly in another. It's been a simple matter of the wizard being quite literally able to do anything and everyone else can suck eggs(except the cleric or the druid).

I've yet to see that happen.

Which is the biggest failing in the whole fighter vs wizard issue. The fighter has few resources, but his costs are low. The Wizard has night unlimited resources...and his costs are low too.

Indeed, and again if you go upthread you'll find my posts about how I think it would be great to attach new limits and costs to the really good magical abilities, rather than neutering them or trying to give the fighter enough "plot coupons" to match.

And if you don't think team sports roles are balanced, you lack an understand of team sports. And sports is a perfect example of what we want to see between the fighter and the wizard. Lets say the defensive lineman is the fighter. Lets say the quarterback is the wizard. How do these two balance out? The quarterback has very specific limitations to his role, he can only move in certain directions, he can only perform a few tasks, unless he gives up his ability to throw(cast) and runs the ball(Tim Tebow did this a lot), so essentially, the Wizard loses his special powers and becomes a fighter. The lineman on the other hand has specific skills too, he's really good at fighting, but he couldn't throw the ball...and probably couldn't catch it either(that's other people's job, lets say the rogue).

Indeed. But quarterbacks are clearly more important to whether a team loses than other players are. And yet, all the players matter.

Each of them perform specific tasks within the system, but none of the can do all the tasks at the same time. The problem with magic has traditionally been that it has few penalties and allows the user to do all the tasks at the same time, any time, every time.

I think that's rather exaggerated, but I don't fundamentally disagree.

Sure it does...if you ignore absolutely everything about anything you quoted above and just look at the fact that Scotty wears yellow and Riker wears red.

Actually they both wear red. Uniform colors changed between series.

See, now here's an actual point and I feel it's true(even as a 4e fan), 4e uses the same mathematics and same underlying system for all it's "powers" for every class. Sure, some things are ranged, some are burst, some are melee, but overall you're right. But using the same system to create different results is only a step to sameness if you insist that different classes must use different systems or they are inherently the same. I mean by that argument the Wizard, the Cleric and the Druid are all essentially the same, while the Fighter, the Rogue and the Barbarian are also all essentially the same.

I don't really agree with that. For example, if you replaced all class abilities with feats and all saves/BAB/etc. with skills, everyone would be on the same mechanics. And yet, you could still have a diversity of classes that don't exist in 4e. You could make one class with more skills than the other, but less feats. You could make one with a lot of skills and feats but low hit points. And when you actually built that character, he could have any feat he qualified for and any skill he chose.

That's very different than requiring everyone to advance all their skills (standard modifier) or to pick powers of a fairly focused scope at exactly the same rate (AEDU).

Is it worthwhile? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you want out of character creation.

Which means we're back to the point I've made earlier and many times across this forum, is that if you look at it that way, that same mechanics even utilized to create different outcomes is the path to sameness, you really only need two classes: the fighting-man and the magic-user. That's IT. Every single other class can be represented by some variation to one of those two themes, or some mix of the two.

So basically, what you're saying is that classes are self-justifying, that we blow out the mechanics entirely to justify the notion of classes. You're not wrong about that. I'd be fine with increasing their flexibility and making them more generic (like a 3e fighter) or simply losing them altogether.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The thing with that is, in D&D you don't have a "Combat" skill. There's no one number that determines how good you are at combat. And combat is multifactorial. It's not only about dealing damage (in different ways, at different distances, through different distances), it's also about buffing/debuffing, movement, healing, and any number of other things.

I (as has been argued elsewhere) don't believe that the basic D&D rules structure (attacks rolls, AC, damage, hit points, saving throws, etc.) offers enough ways for nonmagical characters to contribute in all those areas, despite its emphasis on combat. So magical characters end up looking too good by comparison.

It might be productive here to list some effects that non magical character SHOULD be able to produce, and evaluate how effective the current rules are at producing those effects.

Disarm - in the core rules, seems to work fine

Grapple - same, maybe a bit fiddly

Decapitate - in my mind this is a straight-up example of hp damage. If you "miss" someone with a decapitating strike you'll probably still do heavy damage to the head or shoulder, so I'd say just roll a normal attack and call it andecapitation if the target dies and a blow to the shoulder if not.

Sever/break limb - missing from the current rules

Bleeding wound - not in the rules, but could be modeled as ongoing damage.

Knockout - in the rules as non lethal damage.

Stun - monks can do it, but it'd be worth considering for other martial classes too.

Frighten - rogue skill trick

Taunt/distract - rogue skill tricks

Trip - maneuver

I'm probably being unimaginative here, so what other effective martial status effects or special attacks are lacking from the current playtest rules? What could a badass fighter or rogue do narratively that isn't handled by the current system? Because getting rid of hp is probably a no-go, but finding ways to add cool maneuvers and skill tricks is another story.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm probably being unimaginative here, so what other effective martial status effects or special attacks are lacking from the current playtest rules? What could a badass fighter or rogue do narratively that isn't handled by the current system? Because getting rid of hp is probably a no-go, but finding ways to add cool maneuvers and skill tricks is another story.

Well, any blow that physically hinders your opponent. Hamstringing them. Giving them a concussion. Kicking them in the groin. Damaging their eyes.

Active defense (parrying and dodging). Fighters aren't nearly good enough at defending themselves.

And while knockout is in the rules as subdual damage (or nonlethal, whatever), what's wrong with giving out an ability essentially like Hold Person to a fighter? If you crit an opponent (or something) they have to make a save or fall unconscious, even if they still have hp left. The point is that you can bypass hp, which is a Big Deal balance-wise.