Complex fighter pitfalls

[Kraydak]

I have played fighters across editions, and I am not a big fan of a complex fighters for several reasons that I think are worth considering.

1) Maneuvers like Disarm, Bull Rushing and Trip often don't apply. Disarming a dragon poses obvious difficulties. Bull Rushing a Great Wyrm or Tripping a Purple Worm is also tricky, especially for a human sized character. In 3e, these tactics were effectively impossible. 4e solved that problem by saying "ignore the fluff, apply the mechanic"..... but that causes suspension of disbelief problems and, from what I've seen of 5e, doesn't seem to fit its philosophy.

2) Maneuvers like Disarm, Bull Rushing and Trip kind of suck. By and large, they are a 1 round-control effect. With 5e's easier movement, these maneuvers are even weaker than in previous editions. Having one party member spend his action for a chance at countering 1 foe's action only works if there is a particular, high priority foe. Such foes are likely to be highly resistant to the tactics (see note 1).

3) Swords shouldn't be stat-sticks. A fighter who holds a sword in one hand while spending his time Bull Rushing enemies like bowling-pins is just a jumped up monk. This can be dealt with by making the maneuvers free-action riders on a main attack, but that still leaves the problem of the general suckitude of most fighter-type maneuvers.

4) Improvisation is hard. It is easy and seductive to come up with scenarios where improvisation is awesome. It is hard to come with improvisation for a random scenario, especially round after round. This is a very important fact. Also,
to quote GURPS, "If sand in the face worked every time, barbarian warriors would leave their swords at home and carry bags of sand instead!"
Focussing the fighter on improvisation poses a very real risk of becoming a running gag.

There is room for a slighly-more-complex fighter, but it isn't an easy bit of design space to do well, or at all. A better strategy is to polish the simple fighter, and allow for a few modest bits of complex fighter for free. They generally won't be worth using so they need to be free to avoid being a trap build. On the other hand, they will be rare, so the times they do come up will be that much more rewarding.

 

[rushtong]

I have played fighters across editions, and I am not a big fan of a complex fighters for several reasons that I think are worth considering.

I respectfully disagree with pretty much all of these points. See 5e Fighters are not Boring.

 

[B.T.]

4) Improvisation is hard. It is easy and seductive to come up with scenarios where improvisation is awesome. It is hard to come with improvisation for a random scenario, especially round after round. This is a very important fact. Also,
to quote GURPS, "If sand in the face worked every time, barbarian warriors would leave their swords at home and carry bags of sand instead!"
Focussing the fighter on improvisation poses a very real risk of becoming a running gag.

This is a big one. A lot of the old-school gamers say, "Well, you can just improvies these neat maneuvers!" While that's true, it's also less than ideal. The problem that DMs face with such a system is ruling consistently and fairly, and ruling with respect to game balance. Each one of these is difficult in its own right, but nailing all three (offhand, without time for preparation) is exponentially moreso.

There are a handful of not-good outcomes to the improvisation route.

1. The ruling is too powerful. The player is greatly rewarded for improvising. Unfortunately, the reward is so tempting that the player decides to use the same improvisation over and over again. Sand to the face? Fun and interesting. Once. Not so much every round. So what happens when the players realize that it's such a good tactic that they're hurling dirtclods every round? The DM has to change the rule by imposing limitations. Now, he can do this by writing up a whole bunch of house rules on how the "throw sand" ability works (imposing penalties on subsequent attempts, it only works once per target, it only works once per encounter, and so forth). This is a lot of extra work.

Alternatively (and more frequently, in my experience), the DM will just say, "No, it doesn't work." This is not very fun for the players. Essentially, they are trained to do something once and never try again, at least not for awhile (or until the DM has a bit of liquor in his belly). In essence, you've created a once-per-arbitrary-unit-of-time ability without actually creating rules for it. At that point, you might as well just not have improvisation at all.

2. The ruling is too weak. Whether through incompetence or adherence to "realism," the DM's ruling is very weak. The players realize that improvisation doesn't work and so stick to the same-old attack routine because, hey, swinging your sword each round at least guarantees the chance to do damage, whereas trying something interesting might leave you wasting your action (and thus potentially killing you). For instance, if Legolas attempts leaping onto the troll and firing arrows into its skull, the DM might decide he has to make a check to jump onto the troll, a second check to balance himself on the troll's back, and then (and only then) can Legolas shoot the troll.

There's also the potential for the ruling to punish players for trying. While wasting your action is bad enough, a capricious DM might decide that, in the name of "realism," an improvised attack has the potential to backfire spectacularly. In which case, the attack will backfire spectacularly, usually without the player's foreknowledge of the potential consequences. Returning to the example of Legolas above, the DM might rule that a failure indicates that Legolas falls and injures himself. While that might be realistic, it also means that Legolas is never going to try to jump onto a troll again because he's likely to break his leg.

3. The ruling is inconsistent. This is less problematic than the first two reasons, but it's irksome nonetheless. Rather than creating a standard ruling, attempting anything outside of the standard options involves entirely on the whims of the DM. (While this is always the case to some extent, it matters significantly more when your character might live or die based on the die roll.) Thus, the effects of your improvisation might be a little of #1 and they might be a little of #2 .

Again, this isn't so awful, but it can result in game slowdown and a perceived lack of fairness. If Conan wants to do a whirlwind attack, spin around in circles, and hit everything around him, and the DM says, "Okay, you can do that, just make an attack roll against everything," Conan is probably going to be pretty happy. But if Conan later does this and the DM says, "You can, but you're going to take a penalty on your attacks," Conan is probably going to feel cheated. There will probably be a discussion involving the effects of then vs. now, and there will be an "official" ruling at some point...at which point, you are again making up rules for the game, so why not include them in the first place?

 

[MarkB]

This is where a something like Fate's maneuvers and aspects system works really well. You can improvise any of dozens of different actions, either against an opponent or against the scenery, and cause any of dozens of effects, but game-mechanically they all work out pretty much the same - you make a roll to attempt to place a condition upon the target, which you or others can then 'tag' for a defined numerical bonus to their actions, at a defined cost.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I have played fighters across editions, and I am not a big fan of a complex fighters for several reasons that I think are worth considering.

1) Maneuvers like Disarm, Bull Rushing and Trip often don't apply. Disarming a dragon poses obvious difficulties. Bull Rushing a Great Wyrm or Tripping a Purple Worm is also tricky, especially for a human sized character. In 3e, these tactics were effectively impossible. 4e solved that problem by saying "ignore the fluff, apply the mechanic"..... but that causes suspension of disbelief problems and, from what I've seen of 5e, doesn't seem to fit its philosophy.

Why should that cause suspension of disbelief problems? At the level at which you're fighting Great Wyrms, the Fighter should be the equivalent of Hercules, Grappling Nemean Lions and Cretan Bulls, etc.

The only problem that I can see is effectiveness - and that's a matter of adjusting math, and should be easier in bounded accuracy systems.

2) Maneuvers like Disarm, Bull Rushing and Trip kind of suck. By and large, they are a 1 round-control effect. With 5e's easier movement, these maneuvers are even weaker than in previous editions. Having one party member spend his action for a chance at countering 1 foe's action only works if there is a particular, high priority foe. Such foes are likely to be highly resistant to the tactics (see note 1).

Agreed, if they remain in their traditional form. I think they could be improved for higher levels. Disarm is pretty meh, given that people can pick up their sword - but let's say that by level 10, Disarm becomes Greater Disarm so that you can grab their weapon or toss it away as part of the same action (which could be really powerful against a BBEG with an incredibly powerful sword or plot-crucial magical item). Trip could become more of a knock-down, both dropping them prone and stunning them for 1+ rounds, Bull Rush could dramatically increase the distance you can push so you can start throwing them around the room; alternatively, you could make them AOE so that Fighters plow through hordes of enemies like a battering ram.

On 3, I agree that either Maneuvers should do damage in addition or you should be able to attack and maneuver on the same turn.

 

[n00bdragon]

I don't have a problem with there being simple fighters in the game. I don't have a problem with the concept of "rules light" characters for people who want to improvise more or just don't care or are not that experienced or any number of reasons.

What I do have a problem with is this stigma that only the fighter should be simple, because whenever these discussions come up it's always people begging for a more simplistic sword-guy. Why don't I hear anybody calling for a more simplistic spellcaster? Where is Staffdude Fireshooter or Bandaid McHeals?

Treat everyone fairly or get the fighter out of the feature ghetto entirely please.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Did I miss something, or is the OPs point that the fighter absolutely must suck?

Clearly, no.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a textbook example of how to threadcrap. This post. It contributes nothing to the discussion except a thinly veiled insult directed at the OP. Don't do this. We're all rational human beings, and you should give your fellow posters the benefit of the doubt that they are the same. You can look at the post RIGHT ABOVE THIS ONE and see a contrary opinion expressed in a more constructive way. Lets have a bit more of that, and a bit less of this. ~ Kamikaze Midget

 

[Kraydak]

Did I miss something, or is the OPs point that the fighter absolutely must suck?

No. My point is that designing a complex fighter is hard. Some groups will accept a fighter grappling a dragon whose foot weighs more than the fighter's maximum encumbrance level (PC strength capped at 20, whee). Many groups will, however, balk. Disarm only really works if your foes are, well, armed. Further, reasonable Fighter maneuvers tend to be really, really weak compared with spell-based debuffs.

That doesn't mean that fighters have to suck. Give them absolutely dominant offense and top-tier defense and they'll do fine. But that does mean you need to give them absolutely dominant offense, which doesn't currently seem to be in the cards.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

A playable complex fighter can be tough to design, I'll admit, but I'll cheer if they ever get the fighter to be able to play out this kind of fight:

Inigo Montoya: You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, ah?
Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain.
Inigo Montoya: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Ferro?
Man in Black: Naturally... but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don't you?
Inigo Montoya: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa... which I have.

 

[GX.Sigma]

What I do have a problem with is this stigma that only the fighter should be simple, because whenever these discussions come up it's always people begging for a more simplistic sword-guy. Why don't I hear anybody calling for a more simplistic spellcaster? Where is Staffdude Fireshooter or Bandaid McHeals?

I think pretty much everyone wants simpler everything. It's just that the simplest possible fighter is simpler than the simplest possible wizard, and thus is a good yardstick.

OP: I think the maneuver options Mearls was talking about work fine: basic maneuvers based on ability contests, improvised maneuvers based on taking a penalty to hit and adding a rider, and "trained" maneuvers anyone can take.

I think putting them in themes is a terrible idea, as themes with maneuvers will not be used by people who don't like them, and themes without maneuvers will not be used by people who do like them; so either way, you lose options. I liked the idea that appeared in prior posts: Have a big list of combat maneuvers somewhere in the book, and some classes will be able to have access to it.