Complex fighter pitfalls

[Kraydak]

Well, 4e did it, so hard, maybe but not impossible.

4e got around a lot of the problems by declaring that when fluff and crunch conflicted, crunch won, regardless of how conceptually silly the result might be. I really don't think that 5e will keep that decision. I certainly hope it doesn't.

You're not describing hard to design, you're describing a prejudice against not merely a complex fighter, but a capable fighter. You are, indeed, describing an opinion - held by "many groups" - that the fighter must suck.

I have a hard time seeing how it is possible that a fighter that can kill a dragon in single combat sucks, UNLESS he can also grapple the foe, whose foot weighs more than the fighter's entire encumbrance allotment.

It is not designing a complex, balanced fighter that is the difficulty. It is overcoming the prejudice against a fighter that has mere parity with casters that is hard.

There is no balance to be obtained by making one class tightly limited by spurious 'realism,' and others completely unrestrained in breadth and scope of power. It doesn't matter if you have the fighter hitting and one-shotting every monster in the book - he'll just be an overpowered choiceless beatstick instead of an underpowered choiceless beatstick.

So your problem has absolutely nothing to do with Simple Fighter vs. Complex Fighter, and everything to do with Why Fighter At All?

Actually, that is an easy question to answer. Seriously. Really, really, really easy. What do wizards fear? Huge hit-point, high offense enemies that shed magic like water off a duck's back. That is what a high level Fighters needs to be. That is what high level monsters need to be. All of a sudden, Fighters do the fighting, while the wizards provide backup. Complex vs Simple doesn't even enter the equation, although some attention to out-of-combat abilities would be nice. 3e's 2 skillpoints/level with a weak skill list was, well, indefensible.

Seriously, I'm sorry if you didn't mean this way and I've just picked your thread to throw down this particular gauntlet, but it's an unacceptable demand. If 5e is going to be an 'inclusive' edition, it's going to have to include a balanced fighter that has parity with casters. It can be ignored by anyone who doesn't like it, but it needs to be provided. Not just the fighter, but each martial or 'non-caster' class, Warlord and Rogue as well, and Ranger if there's a non-casting version of it.

Yup. Caster/non-Caster parity. Quite easily obtained. Just hand out magic resistance like candy. Kinda like 1e, where all the big names (and little names) saved on 2s. Scarily often, with Magic Resistance percentages on top. It is *amazing* how much ground Fighters lost when they went from saving on 2s and killing wizards in 1.5 rounds (1e/2e) to saving on 15s and taking 3-4 rounds to drop a (decently built) wizard (3e).

Again though, I have no idea how the Simple/Complex dichotomy applies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4e got around a lot of the problems by declaring that when fluff and crunch conflicted, crunch won, regardless of how conceptually silly the result might be.

And that the fluff was freely mutable. So if the provided flavor text conflicted with the situation in some way, you just changed it, and visualized the power in some way that did make sense. Worked for spells as well as exploits: Icy Terrain cast on a flying enemy doesn't have any 'terrain' to ice up so it creates a mini-sleet-storm and ices up it's wings, causing it to fall prone. The spell creates a zone of difficult terrain, cold damage, and the prone condition - flavor is mutable, so it can be adapted to the situation.

m has absolutely nothing to do with Simple Fighter vs. Complex Fighter, and everything to do with Why Fighter At All?

It can come down to that. If the only role the Fighter can play is as a mundane contrast to show how awesome the casters are, relegate it to an NPC class and have everyone play casters.

Actually, that is an easy question to answer. Seriously. Really, really, really easy. What do wizards fear?

Bookworms?

Yup. Caster/non-Caster parity. Quite easily obtained. Just hand out magic resistance like candy. Kinda like 1e, where all the big names (and little names) saved on 2s.

Fine for cage matches, I guess. But parity in a cooperative game is more complex than that. It's not just who badass you are, it's how versatile you are, how much more you can contribute when the situation is desperate - sometimes called 'plot power' or 'agency.'

 

[Tovec]

I will never understand why martial characters capable of legendary feats are more part of the world's collective story-telling than reality-warping wizards, yet people are more accepting in D&D of Wizards who can do anything and Fighters Who Can't Have Nice Things...

Was that directed at me?

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that there is an in-game, as well as mega-game, reason for the wizards to be able to move mountains vs letting the fighters being able to do it - via magic.

I don't think it seriously comes down to not wanting fighters to have nice things. I know that personally I want my fighter to be effective, I have always done whatever I can to make him effective and always made sure he was respected as a fine combatant in my preferred edition (3.5) even when people try to tell me I'll never stand a chance against the wizard.

But once again, for me, it comes down to the fact that wizards have magic, and for that reason I'm very much okay with them breaking what I understand to be reality. Whereas fighters don't and therefore shouldn't be able to. I can understand people who would like their fighter to be Superman, since the wizards are of course Zatana but I don't see that as being DnD's wheelhouse.

Now, I can certainly see variations where this is true, along with builds or prestiges or whatever they do to allow customized characters but that shouldn't be the norm, that should be on top of the norm.

Fair enough? But please then explain your first sentence in that post:

If that suits you, but SHOULDN'T doesn't belong etc etc...

Sure, let me quote the entire thing once again so there is no confusion.

*grumbles* NO! The fighter shouldn't be the equivalent of HERCULES.

At epic, possibly but I will disagree with you to my dying day that at any point before the fighter becomes a god (or half-god) with untold cosmic-godly strength that the fighter should be equivalent to HERCULES!

With the same kind of specialization, training and skill I can fight like Jet Li or (the real) Chuck Norris. I'm never going to be equal to a greek god! I'm never going to redirect rivers in order to clean stables. It isn't within my power, it isn't going to happen.

I don't want it, you can if that suits you but SHOULD doesn't belong anywhere near that sentence.

You quoted in reverse order of course. But let me try and clarify.

If something is what you want to play, refer to my comments about Superman above, that is fine. More power to you. I can even understand those options being available in Core vs a module.

What I am saying is that fighters should not be Hercules. They shouldn't have herculean power. They aren't gods with nigh impossible strength. They are mortals. Until that human fighter BECOMES a god (or half-god) and ascends to join the other olympians he shouldn't be able to redirect rivers. Hercules redirecting rivers is a feat of his immense strength, it isn't and shouldn't be a fighter "power".

What is more, in those quoted parts, I replied what something shouldn't be. Not what something Should be. So I don't really see the contradiction.
I can understand if I had said that fighters SHOULD have the power to do XYZ instead of ZYZ but that isn't it. Hell, I didn't even say that they should be limited by our real world reality. (At least I didn't say that here.)

I DID go on to say that I can understand training to allow anyone to become Jet Li. I see that as perfectly fighter able. I can even understand allowing asian cinema type moves. I don't agree, and never will, that a fighter of any stripe should be Hercules' equal UNLESS he becomes a god. A GOD is the reason for the abilities, being a fighter is secondary.

I can honestly see Hercules performing the same feats (pardon the term but I saw nothing better that applied) if he was recorded as being a sage and magic user. It is an element of his divine heritage that allowed him to perform great acts, not the fighter in him. The fighter in him allowed him to FIGHT WELL.

Give me an example of fighting, not an example relating to a greek god, that's all I'm saying. For this reason, and only this reason, I say that SHOULD has no business being near "fighters should be equal to Hercules", especially since they shouldn't. God-fighters sure, but no one else.

My entire comment goes away if he had said "equivalent to Arthur and the knights of the round table" but that isn't the comparison made.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think it comes down to not wanting fighters to have nice things.

Whatever the rationale, if you advocate for the caster to be able to do anything because "it's magic" but not allow the fighter to do anything 'unrealistic' even though he's a mythic hero in a fantasy world, then, yes, it comes down to simply demanding the fighter be inferior.

What I am saying is that fighters should not be Hercules. They shouldn't have herculean power. They aren't gods with nigh impossible strength. They are mortals. Until that human fighter BECOMES a god (or half-god) and ascends to join the other olympians he shouldn't be able to redirect rivers. Hercules redirecting rivers is a feat of his immense strength, it isn't and shouldn't be a fighter "power".

Well, Demi-god is a perfectly available Epic Path for Fighters, so, in D&D at least, they can pass that litmus test.

More to the point, though, 'fighters' of myth and legend do impossible things even in the absence of divine heritage. Fergus mac Roth punched the tops of mountains. He wasn't the sun of a deity or anything, he was 'just' a legendary 'King' of Ireland (part of Ireland). He hung out with Cu'Chulain, who, in some version of the myth, may have been a demi-god, but that's about as close as it got.

The problem as I see it one of suspension of disbelief. The fantasy genre has heroes without 'magical powers' doing incredible and even impossible feats, it also has magic-using characters who are not usually heroes, doing impossible - but typically very limited or strictly plot-moving things. D&D tried to emulate the genre, but also make magic-user playable rather than plot devices. It failed. It made casters overpowered, and by sticking to that failure for decades, created it's own overpowered-casters-ruling-the-fantasy-world genre.

If the game is going to move towards it's goal of bringing us all together, it's going to have to do what 4e did, and make real options - in terms of power, versatility, & 'plot power' or 'player agency' - available to all classes.

Either that or it needs to abandon that goal and drop non-casters as playable casters.

 

[Tovec]

Whatever the rationale, if you advocate for the caster to be able to do anything because "it's magic" but not allow the fighter to do anything 'unrealistic' even though he's a mythic hero in a fantasy world, then, yes, it comes down to simply demanding the fighter be inferior.

I don't advocate that at all. I provide a reason why it is possible. You advocate that the fighters better be 'magical' too or else get out. I would rather keep both classes around and just reduce the availability of magic being able to do ANYTHING without reason or cause.

Well, Demi-god is a perfectly available Epic Path for Fighters, so, in D&D at least, they can pass that litmus test.

If you'll note both of my posts in this thread you'll see that IF the fighter becomes a god then that is fine. Epic path or no. Otherwise they shouldn't display godlike powers.

More to the point, though, 'fighters' of myth and legend do impossible things even in the absence of divine heritage. Fergus mac Roth punched the tops of mountains. He wasn't the sun of a deity or anything, he was 'just' a legendary 'King' of Ireland (part of Ireland). He hung out with Cu'Chulain, who, in some version of the myth, may have been a demi-god, but that's about as close as it got.

Okay, first I would speculate that either the Irish king has some form of magic, god-blood in his veins or simply DIDN'T do what he is known to have done. If he is just a "fighter" then there is no earthly explanation of how he could have done what he did without magic.

I would propose this because he is an example from the real world (not one of 4e) where people who aren't gods or don't have magic aren't typically able to perform such feats (again I can't think of a better term).

The problem as I see it one of suspension of disbelief. The fantasy genre has heroes without 'magical powers' doing incredible and even impossible feats, it also has magic-using characters who are not usually heroes, doing impossible - but typically very limited or strictly plot-moving things. D&D tried to emulate the genre, but also make magic-user playable rather than plot devices. It failed. It made casters overpowered, and by sticking to that failure for decades, created it's own overpowered-casters-ruling-the-fantasy-world genre.

Either that or it needs to abandon that goal and drop non-casters as playable casters.

So the solution you propose is to remove anyone who can't wield magic... because ... people who can wield magic are overpowered? Mine would be to remove (or decrease) those who are overpowered, *shrug* that is just my preference I guess. I would prefer to eliminate things that would break my game instead of making EVERYONE in my game have powers that can break the game.

If the game is going to move towards it's goal of bringing us all together, it's going to have to do what 4e did, and make real options - in terms of power, versatility, & 'plot power' or 'player agency' - available to all classes.

It isn't necessary to "Bring us all together" by appeasing the lowest common denominator. It is peferable to make a good system with internal consistency and then get everyone to play by the new rules instead of trying to take bits and pieces from all the old editions and string them together to form a new Frankenstein of an edition where no one is happy. It is definitely preferable to avoid taking controversial aspects of previous editions, thereby pissing people off who disliked that aspect, and introducing it into a new edition.

Also, it doesn't have anything to do with 4e's anything. It has to do with simple expectations and what the game should do. I understand you want no one but magic users in the game but I don't see that happening any time soon so maybe "advocating" it isn't really getting you anywhere Tony.

 

[erleni]

I don't think Tony wants magic users only (but I guess he'll come back on that).

On my side I think that saying that magic-users can do anything because they have magic and fighters cannot because they don't, is really the root of the worst things we have seen in D&D so far.
And saying that magic resistance or incredibly low saving throws are what is needed to challenge wizards is silly too. I saw that happening in 2e where the only thing that kept my fighter on par with the spellcasters was that it was a drow and had an incredibly high magic resistance. Well I hated that. It was like playing a trump card. That's the same reason I hated many 2e spells that were "I win" buttons unless your opponent had the right "trump card", turning combat into rock-paper-scissors stuff.

Fighters should be able to stand up on their own. They did it in 4th edition so we know they can do it, and they even partially did it in 3rd edition albeit under the form of the Warblade class.

If you want a high "ceiling" on magic-users power then you need superhuman fighters to make them worthwhile. In 2e I've seen our wizard forcecaging an enemy (with the "bars" version), surrounding the cage with a wall of force and then conjuring water to fill up the wall-of-force container to drown him. That was really sad and reall showed the dichotomy between casters and others.
On the other hand you can pull the reins on the wizard, but that will mean stripping down its abilities quite a lot.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I disagree that Mearls approach is correct.

Standard Maneuvers like Trip, Bullrush and Disarm that replace a regular attack are okay with me.

But the description of his "narrative" rules module that uses penalties to attack rolls to give you a maneuver-like attack with a regular attack is suboptimal. It leads to spamming maneuvers if the penalty is "reasonable", and to never using them if not. The approach is more simulationist then narrative.

The 4E approach with encounter powers beats his concept. You have to think about when to use a particular maneuver, but when you do so, you can use it relatively reliably (you still need to hit) but take no direct penalties.

 

[Umbran]

But the description of his "narrative" rules module that uses penalties to attack rolls to give you a maneuver-like attack with a regular attack is suboptimal. It leads to spamming maneuvers if the penalty is "reasonable", and to never using them if not.

It leads to spamming maneuvers if the maneuver is clearly superior, and never using them if they are clearly inferior in all situations. Striking the balance between those extremes can be difficult, and likely isn't all in the realm of game design - it also rests in encounter/adventure design.

I don't think there's a way to design maneuvers that are 1) interesting, 2) complex, and 3) applicable to *all* situations. You have to pick two. The typical approach in design is to pick (1) and (2), and leave it up to the GM and adventure designers to make sure the tactical scenarios are varied enough that a valid use for each maneuver comes up from time to time.

The approach is more simulationist then narrative.

If you are picking one path because it is superior in terms of game-stats and numbers, it is gamist, not simulationist.

 

[Splurch]

First to compare what normal people can do to a D&D fighter is not right, a normal person doesn't fight wizards or dragons. I think they can be balanced for certain situations but sometimes its better to be a fighter and sometimes its better to be a wizard, cleric etc. I think a complex fighter should be able to fight a dragon by doing things like being able to find the weak spot under his scales to do more damage or having great reflexes to dodge some magic or just being tough enough to fight through some situations. I think they can accomplish this with stances, maneuvers, and feats.

 

[Someone]

Focussing the fighter on improvisation poses a very real risk of becoming a running gag.

So it's something like this...

Dm: Your turn
Fighter's player: I swing my sword
Dm: Your turn
Fighter's player: I swing my sword
Dm: Your turn
Fighter's player: I swing my sword
Dm: Your turn
Fighter's player: I swing my sword
Dm: Your turn
Fighter's player: I swing my sword
Dm: Your turn
Fighter's player: I trip the ogre.
Dm: You are repeating yourself!

More seriously, I like my fighters to be worthy of this quote:

Stoick: When I was a boy...
Gobber: Oh here we go.
Stoick: ...my father told me to bang my head against a rock and I did it! I thought I was crazy, but I didn't question him. And you know what happened?
Gobber: You got a headache.
Stoick: That rock split in two! It taught me what a Viking can do, Gobber, he can, he can crush mountains, level forests, tame seas!

After all even mid level fighters are attacking, armed only with a sharp piece of metal, 30 foot tall firebreathing reptiles that should be able to instantly crush all their bones with a casual flick of one claw. They're mythic characters just because of the stuff they do, it's hardcoded in the rules. Giants, dragons and giant dragons are the stuff of legends (half dragon giants too). That makes the PCs legendary. Limiting them to mundane, real world capabilities on any other task that doesn't involve hacking with said sharp piece of metal would seriously stress my suspension of disbelief.