Complex fighter pitfalls

[B.T.]

I haven't read the whole thread thus far--too many posts and too much back-and-forth--but I'm merely going to comment on what I've seen so far.

Regarding the debate about simple fighters and simple wizards: the wizard will always be more complicated than the fighter, all other things presumed equal. The fighter can swing a sword and shoot a bow. The wizard can do these also, and he may use magic on top of this. Even if you simplify the wizard to the point where all he can do is cast magic missile, the wizard has one additional mechanic atop the fighter's.

Regarding realism of the fighter, please keep in mind this historical tidbit on longbow use: "Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognisably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers." Thus, if one is interested in concepts of simulationism, a skilled longbow fighter should be "recognizably deformed," probably with penalties in melee combat.

High-level fighters are expected they can cut through a dragon's hide with their swords. I don't want weird narrative/metagame abilities in 5e (there are a handful of these in 4e, which I despise), but I don't really care if the fighter can charge and knock a dragon over.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Regarding the debate about simple fighters and simple wizards: the wizard will always be more complicated than the fighter, all other things presumed equal.

That's just it. They shouldn't be. The wizard can "swing a sword". The fighter focusses on combos, on detail, on reacting faster than their opponent, and on tricks. They should literally be acting more often than the wizard and with more depth to their actions; spells are simple discrete effects.

 

[B.T.]

Presumably, though I have seen no D&D system that has done such a thing. Of course, one could argue for having an attack bonus that varies depending on the type of armor worn by an enemy and the weapon used, but that level of detail is too much for me.

If I were to push for a simple fighter that can do what you suggest, I might allow him to roll 1d8 each round. On a roll of 8, he could take a second action at his current initiative count - 10. Eventually, the 1d8 would increase so that success was on a 7 or 8, then a 6 to 8, and so forth.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First find your Mattock of the Titans...

It wasn't easy to find spells (scrolls for instance, or books) in AD&D, and it was quite costly and time-consuming to research them. But, if a magic-user needed Move Earth, he was a lot more likely to be able to get it using his native abilities (if he didn't already know it, he could research it), than a Fighter was to get a Mattock of the Titans.

========================================
Quote:
How does a simple rule saying "zombies can be decapitated but are otherwise immune to crits and precision damage" not solve that problem?
=========================================
1: It is extremely imprecise.
2: It breaks simulation - anything with a discernable anatomy has weak spots and is therefore vulnerable to precision damage. This is a very bad immunity. There is no reason the zombie should have it in the first place. (The zombie full of bullets just indicates that there's no weak spot in the centre of the torso. But you can hamstring a zombie or cut its leg off).

Better might be: "When a zombie is destroyed by a crit or precision damage, it is decapitated."

 

[JamesonCourage]

Better might be: "When a zombie is destroyed by a crit or precision damage, it is decapitated."

While I strongly dislike the precision damage immunity, couldn't it just be "when a zombie is destroyed, it may be decapitated"? I fail to see how immunity to precision damage prevents a zombie from being decapitated when it is destroyed normally. As always, play what you like

 

[Neonchameleon]

[MENTION=95493]Tovec[/MENTION], (I know of no sensible way to reply to XP comments), a rule of thumb about 4e monster books is that the newer they are the better. MM1 < MM2 < MM3 and Dark Sun Creature Catalogue < Monster Vault and MV: Threats to the Nentir Vale. I'll match the MM1 up against the 3.X offerings and the 2e MM (the 1e MM is far weaker) for crunch although the MM1 isn't a good read in the way the 2e MM was (it's a reference book like the PHB). But two thirds of the monster manuals for 4e are in the MM3 or later eras so I don't consider it that late

And one reason 4e players are so disappointed with the D&D Next monsters presented is that we've just had what are IMO far and away the two best monster manuals printed for any edition of D&D (Monster Vault and Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale). The Hook Horror presented in L&L makes the one in the MM1 look ... innovative, interesting, and a good match for the fluff. And that was a throwaway monster by MM1 standards (there are worse in there - the Purple Worm, Dracolich, and Wraith all come to mind as being actively not fun rather than just being dashed off; all three were redone in MV for a very good reason).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

First of all, I own both books. MV and threats to the nentir vale. And while I like the fluff and the monster design, it in no way comes close to the 2nd edition monster manual (stat block with habitat and diet etc). Also, although powers were generally well written, I don´t like unique mechanics for every monster. Just like player abilities, monster powers should work with general assumptions about the game´s physik:

I don´t need a power that sets someone on fire to tell me, how I get rid off it. Beeing on fire needs to be a condition, that ends, if I do something against it. I don´t want monsters with mundane effects, that somehow end on a savinging throw.

So, any monster who has burining oil or something, can "set one on fire" and you know, 1d6 damage (if not otherwise noted) and you need to roll on the floor and make a dexterity check to put it off (against DC 10 if not noted otherwise).

So a hook horror can draw on some maneuvers and because of its stats it will perform fine. (Maybe an adnavtage here or there could also help)

So, and to make some on topic comment:
A fighter that sets someone on fire should not have to take a feat to be able at all. He could however get a simple bonus if he selects a theme. (like knowledge of how to admix it and how to prepare his clothes so he does not catch fire himself)

 

[MarkB]

I don´t need a power that sets someone on fire to tell me, how I get rid off it. Beeing on fire needs to be a condition, that ends, if I do something against it.

Even in real life, not all instances of "on fire" are equal. Depending upon the nature and intensity of the fire, any of a variety of different approaches may be effective, and a technique which works against one may exacerbate another (i.e. water on oil fires). That's why industrial facilities carry multiple types of extinguishing gear, and firemen have to be trained to deal with a variety of scenarios using a wide range of equipment.

And that's not even getting into weaponised incendiaries, which use a number of methods to ensure that they are difficult to remove or extinguish via conventional means.

I would certainly relate higher level fire-based opponents in D&D to "weaponised incendiaries", and expect their attacks to be tough to shake off, making specific mechanics more appropriate than universal ones.

 

[Neonchameleon]

First of all, I own both books. MV and threats to the nentir vale. And while I like the fluff and the monster design, it in no way comes close to the 2nd edition monster manual (stat block with habitat and diet etc).

And here we disagree strongly. Tastes vary. The details of habitat are world specific. And therefore largely irrelevant unless I'm building my own gameworld and doing it exactly by the book. I know there are a tribe of goblins there. Which means that the habitat section is then irrelevant. What it's trying to be is a world-specific monster book (like Nentir Vale) for a generic system. In other words most of the ecology other than the feeding habits to me are almost wasted space. 4e monster manuals on the other hand tell me how monsters think and how they organise (and not just what weapons they carry) - a fundamentally deeper approach than 2e ever managed.

I don´t need a power that sets someone on fire to tell me, how I get rid off it. Beeing on fire needs to be a condition, that ends, if I do something against it.

And here I disagree strongly. Being on fire because your clothes are burning is different from being on fire because someone's covered you in napalm. Saltpeter and oil is fundamentally different to just oil for setting someone on fire (the one provides its own oxygen so rolling on the floor is going to not do a hell of a lot) - and I don't want a lookup table containing "Got too near a bonfire", "burning oil - bandit mixture", burning oil - kobold mixture", "Napalm - skilled alchemist mixture", "Dragons breath".

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don´t need a power that sets someone on fire to tell me, how I get rid off it. Beeing on fire needs to be a condition, that ends, if I do something against it. I don´t want monsters with mundane effects, that somehow end on a savinging throw.

Nod. That's fine, really. Others would like to know exactly how to end a given effect, and still others would like a common mechanical resolution (or few) for ending effects, in general, to keep things consistent so they don't get in the way of the flow of the game or further slow things down.

For those who want to use their own judgement when it comes to ending effects, the obvious solution is to override any given mechanic with said judgement. For those who do want one (or a few different) mechanic(s) for resolving duration, general rules are needed. For those who want how each effect is ended, specific variations on those rules could be used (and ignored by those who want to keep it 'simple'/consistent').

So a pyromaniac's "Clingfire" attack might say something like: X fire damage, plus y ongoing fire damage (save ends; save using DEX at -4 the first round, penalty declines 1/round becoming a bonus with no upper limit as the clingfire burns itself out).

The entire parenthetical, then, would be optional. You'd ignore it in favor of your own judgement. A DM who wanted simple/consistent resolution would just use the 'save ends' notation before the semi-colon, while one wanting detailed/varied resolution would use the whole thing.

So, any monster who has burining oil or something, can "set one on fire" and you know, 1d6 damage (if not otherwise noted) and you need to roll on the floor and make a dexterity check to put it off (against DC 10 if not noted otherwise).

So, even though you'd prefer to come up with it, yourself, you still wouldn't mind some stuff 'otherwise noted.'

Sounds like this is one of those rare things where 'pleasing everyone' might not be that impossible, afterall.

So, and to make some on topic comment:
A fighter that sets someone on fire should not have to take a feat to be able at all. He could however get a simple bonus if he selects a theme. (like knowledge of how to admix it and how to prepare his clothes so he does not catch fire himself)

A Theme is a lot more of a commitment than a single feat, so I'm not sure how that's any better. I do agree about the feat problem, though. Often, when there's a complaint that fighters aren't customizeable or don't do enough, the response is to take things anyone could do, and make them impractical combat options or not options at all, then give the fighter feats to make them practical or possible. Sort of an "Oh, you want /more/? Well, here's a more complex, detailed and limited way to have /less/!"