Can the Fighter be Real and Equal to spellcasters?

[Lackhand]

Well they'll be disappointed by 4e I think, then. It took notes from Wow, Bo9S, and I think also Exalted in how it will handle warriors. Conan won't stand a chance against a fighter with perfect spikey hair who can jump across 50' chasms, turn his sword into fire, and throw it like a boomerang...

Oh?
Conan wouldn't stand a chance against Hercules, Achilles, or MacLeod either. He could probably take Arthur, Gawain, or Lancelot (singly), and beat up any of the musketeers in a cakewalk.

You're comparing someone who's maybe 12th level, 15th level ... to abilities which aren't available until 20th level.

Hey, I've as much faith in my setup as in yours Or should we both be using more "probably"s?

 

[jtrowell]

Well they'll be disappointed by 4e I think, then. It took notes from Wow, Bo9S, and I think also Exalted in how it will handle warriors. Conan won't stand a chance against a fighter with perfect spikey hair who can jump across 50' chasms, turn his sword into fire, and throw it like a boomerang...

Seems like you didn't read Bo9S.

Know that there are 3 bases classes in the book :

- crusader (a paladin remade with some martial and surnatural maneuvers instead of spells)
- swordsage (sort of surnatural fighter, a cross beetween a monk and a wizard with swift buff spells)
- warblade (a fighter with manoeuvers)

Of thoses, only the swordsage get normal access to maneuvers and combat stances with clerly magical effects (fire sword, teleport, ...)
The crusader get some surnatural healing/reinvigorating and the like
The warblade get only access to 'martial' maneuvers

The swordsage is clearly a prorotype of the future swordmage, the arcane defender in 4th edition (not in PHB1)
The crusader should be a prototype of part of the 4th paladin (and maybe some cleric powers too)
I expect the 4th edition fighter (and the warlord) to be more like the warblade, not the other 2.

What can a warblade do ?

- strike several foes with an attack (whirlwind attack remade better)
- make some powerful attack that can push back the target, or make it fall prone
- break some persistent effect with force of will alone (well, ... this maneuver has been poorly explained, but the idea is a very good one I think)
- take a combat stance that give him a AC bonus versus an opponent, but a malus versus all other attacks
- another stance give a malus to AC to increase damage (-2 AC to get +1D6 damage on all attacks, a 1st level stance)
- give allies bonus or additionnal actions (this should be more for the warlord), because of morale (the warblade take an opponent down and allies get a morale bonus for 1 round) or tactical action

All of that make playing a fighting class cool, without any surnatural power, and without the feat system making a fighter do the same effective but boring action each round ("I power attack/trip/grapple/... again this round"), because the maneuver system force him to do different actions each round.

 

[bgaesop]

I tried to post this earlier but apparently it didn't go through:

A good recent (hah!) example of a high level fighter doing something on par with what a high level mage could do is the Beowulf movie, specifically, the fight scene with a dragon at the end. That is how I envision a high level fighter fighting with a dragon: using its size against it, being thrown about but able to deal with it because he's so tough, holding on getting into position where he can get in that mortal blow... all that is stuff that Joe Axekill the level 1 fighter should never be able to do, but Johan Axenbludh the level 27 fighter should be able to pull off.

 

[BASHMAN]

What can a warblade do ? .

Qualify for a prestige class that allows him to throw any melee weapon like a boomerang.

And yes, I own the Bo9S, read it, like it, have played several characters from it-- but don't like it replacing the core fighter entirely. My 50' leap w/ flaming boomerang sword example is something that was a combination of abilities from Bo9S (one of the Tiger Claw jumping abilities, + that boomerang sword class + Desert wind type stuff).

Oh, and Btw-- the Bloodstorm Blade prestige class (which is built for warblades to take)-- says that the ability to throw a greatsword like a boomerang is rated (Ex), not (Su).

 

[Derren]

Many other RPGs have warriors equal to wizards.

Tunnels & Trolls got the balance right in the 1970s by having warriors do tremendous damage at high levels. My 5th level T&T warrior can kill several orcs in a single attack. He can hack down a small dragon alone and without magical items.

RuneQuest and Stormbringer have plenty of warriors who equal the wizards by the sheer ability to attack, parry and dodge out of danger. My archer with 120% in Bow will impale 24% and critically impale 12% of the time. Few wizards are going to survive a crit impale in those game systems.

Do all of this systems only have combat spells? Because the fighter can fight as well as he wants, unless he can match the usefulness of spell outside the combat too he will always be weaker than a wizard.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Qualify for a prestige class that allows him to throw any melee weapon like a boomerang.

And yes, I own the Bo9S, read it, like it, have played several characters from it-- but don't like it replacing the core fighter entirely. My 50' leap w/ flaming boomerang sword example is something that was a combination of abilities from Bo9S (one of the Tiger Claw jumping abilities, + that boomerang sword class + Desert wind type stuff).

Oh, and Btw-- the Bloodstorm Blade prestige class (which is built for warblades to take)-- says that the ability to throw a greatsword like a boomerang is rated (Ex), not (Su).

Well, Regeneration is also an (Ex) ability! And that ability makes no sense without some kind of magic or supernatural ability in the mix!

But once you add Prestige Classes, a lot of strange things can happen.
The only reason the whole thing can be a problem is if the majority of the 4E powers would create quasi-magical effects (burning blades, returning greatswords). Because then it would probably be impossible to ignore/forbid them in a game where you don't want them. If they are just some powers on the Fighters list, or even just abilities you can get due to multiclassing or specific paragon pathes, it's easy to limit the access. If someone wants to play a "quasi-magical" fighter, he can use them. If not, he ignores them.
So far, we haven't seen any Fighter powers at all, so we have little evidence either way. The Warblades base characteristics seem to imply that there will be a lot of heroic, but not magical abilities in the mix.

I like this approach a lot more then just giving (requiring!) magic items to Fighters. Some peole might not want fighters to have their swords burst into flames due to some crazy maneuver, but some even don't like it if they have to buy or find such a sword to be useful at higher levels! (And if I had the choice, I'd prefer my Fighter had picked up some ritual blending magic and martial prowess that allowed him to have his sword burst in flame, then just finding a flaming sword. Unless maybe the sword has a rich, ancient history that matters to the character and/or the campaign he is in...)

 

[apoptosis]

Definitely a dagger, not an at-will magic blast (and I meant not necessarily absolute numbers but relative damage to the fighter). Magic shouldn't be convenient, reliable, and unlimited. It's a matter of flavor for me. I'm not a fan of wizards being defined as just spell-slingers and nothing more; I don't think BECMI suffered by having their dagger attacks be relatively important (at low levels, thrown dagger damage was 35-40% of a fighter's damage, and hit frequency nearly the same). It grounds them a little more, keeps them a little more human and less superhero-ish, if they often resort to a thrown dagger or a strike with a staff -- just make it so that it's a moderately useful option. I like the concept of magic as this immensely powerful force that the wizard can just barely contain a small piece of -- not as some force that is at their beck and call whenever they want it (the warlock is different... if wizards are as I see them, then the warlock's at-will abilities become freakishly inhuman and scary). Now, the wizard's big zap should be of greater power and limited use. Perhaps ~10 damage to multiple foes (as good as a fighter's attack), or ~20 damage to a single target, but either way with some limitation on use. Looking at various systems, there are many ways you can do this, frequency of use being one:
a) Saving throw, casting check, or some "% chance it works"
b) Longer casting time, recovery period, or some "lose # of rounds" mechanic
c) Chance of injuring or disabling caster, Sanity check, or some "suffer X result"
d) Limited uses per day or per encounter
e) I'm sure there are other possibilities

Being a fan of the D&D magic system, I favor a mix of (a) and (d), with the DM designing adventures such that the 15-minute adventuring day is not possible (else (d) ceases to be meaningful). For those who don't like the D&D mechanics, there are other options.

I tend to align with you. I want wizards capable of a scope that fighters (mundane characters) cannot replicate. It is how i envision magic, dark and dangerous.

I prefer options b, c and d (i really like b and c). You can balance magic by making powerful but risky. That way a wizard can unload an incredible effect but then has to make the choice whether it is worth it or not.

Possibly the risk increases as they try to cast more frequently. I generally wouldn't want the risk to be death as that is too final but transient crippling, loss of stats, disfigurement etc. would be nice. On really powerful effects the risk should be lesser injury or crippling vs greater injury (they cant avoid paying some price).

 

[Counterspin]

As for risky magic, I always liked the wilder for that feel. Since actions will continue to be the king currency of D&D, a wizard class with lower baseline powers who can surpass his fellows while taking significant risks(losing an action is a significant risk), would be okay with me.

 

[apoptosis]

As for risky magic, I always liked the wilder for that feel. Since actions will continue to be the king currency of D&D, a wizard class with lower baseline powers who can surpass his fellows while taking significant risks(losing an action is a significant risk), would be okay with me.

I think using actions as currency can be a good idea. Possibly lowering long-term risk by using more actions (increasing short-term risk) to cast a spell. One advantage to this is that defending the wizard becomes very important as they might require several rounds to loose a powerful spell.

In general I prefer all magic to be somewhat risky as it helps me also say why more individuals do not practice it.

 

[chitzk0i]

Magic is only an "I win button" in D&D because of tradition, note that there are a bunch of systems d20 and otherwise which use magic and don't have the problem of magic being completely over the top (although there are plenty that do), if you're having trouble conceiving how this is possible, ask for some examples, and I'm sure people more experienced than I can give you some.

In GURPS 4e, damage in combat from magic spells pales in comparison to the sheer volume even a TL3 150-point warrior could put out, much less a character with a repeating firearm.

GURPS magic is really more about status effects, buffs and utility spells.

Dangit, forgot again. This is VirgilCaine.