Complex fighter pitfalls

[I'm A Banana]

You're getting hung-up on the terminology of Trip - if we called it knock-down instead, would it matter if the damn thing didn't have legs?

Yeah, I think this has called it: it's mostly a terminology thing.

So:

"Trip" = "Pinned Down": The vast majority of creatures can be "immobilized until they spend a move action to undo it" in some way. Even oozes can be pinned (though they'd probably be harder to pin!)

"Disarm" = "Attack Disabled": The vast majority of creatures can have a particular attack turned aside, forcing them to take an action to undo it. Stick that dragon's claws in the ground at your feet, or take that tentacle and sever it (and then watch it regrow).

"Bull Rush" = ...um... "Bull Rush." No real need to get too fancy there.

You can probably do this for any given "trick:" identify what it does mechanically, then label it abstractly enough that it applies to humanoids AND to more elaborate monsters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would rather keep both classes around and just reduce the availability of magic being able to do ANYTHING without reason or cause.

I doubt many fans would accept reigning in magic to the degree that it would be balanced with something like the 5e playtest fighter or early-D&D fighter or even 3.x fighter. 4e only brought the wizard down a notch or so and that brought howls of derision.

I suppose part of the appeal of D&D has always been a bit of 'power fantasy,' getting to do the impossible.

Maybe, ideally, the game could have modules to cover very different styles.

One might have rules for very simple fighters and wizards and everyone in-between who balance at a 'gritty' power-level, with fighters doing mostly-realistic things and wizards doing mostly rituals and 'magic' that might conceivably be little more than legerdemain, chemistry (and/or other anachronistic knowledge), and cunning.

Other modules might add more extreme fantasy elements, making wizards into true casters using undeniably-real magic, even in combat (with some difficulty), and fighters into super-human paragons of strength and courage who, likewise, do impossible things.

The dial could go up so far as to have virtually super-hero-like characters of any class.

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.

There's no realistic or scientific or reasonable-to-a-modern person reason why a 'normal' person could punch the top off a mountain in rage. In legend, and in fantasy, just being a king for instance, makes you no longer an ordinary person, and extraordinary people, in an extremity of emotion, doing something impossible isn't out of place at all.

I think this comes from the conflating of fantasy & science-fiction in recent decades. In sci-fi, the writer asks the reader to accept some outlandish assumption (like aliens or time travel or some improbable technological advance) and then explore with him the ramifications of that outlandish idea in an otherwise normal, scientifically plausible world. The fantasy genre can be looked at as a science-fiction setting in which the outlandish assumption is "there is magic." So, you hold anything that's "not magic" to realistic standards. That's not fantasy. In fantasy, the whole thing is outlandish. There is magic, faeries, dragons, unicorns, demi-gods, there is true love conquering all, bards singing the dead back to life, lands falling to famine because their king is depressed, and impossibly brave heroes doing impossible things. There isn't one 'assumption' to be explored in a scientifically-consistent world, there's a whole world that's fantastic.

So the solution you propose is to remove anyone who can't wield magic... because ... people who can wield magic are overpowered?

My solution would be to present a balanced game. If the balanced fighter is so unacceptable to such a broad swath of the fanbase that only underpowered fighters can be used (which, you, for instance, absolutely insist upon), then they shouldn't be used as a PC class.

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.

I don't see that happening, but see above about modular power levels. It might be possible to present the game with some sort of 'dial' or series of modules in which the amount of power/un-reality in the game can be adjusted. At the low end, fighters are just guys with swords able to do only what real life guys with swords can do, and wizards are just alchemists and sages, able to do only what real life alchemists and sages could do, and at the high end, they're both super-heroes, with several notches in between.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I've got an idea: Double or nothing. Let's say any spell or weapon effect is applied to the target if reduced to zero hp. (I mentioned this before).
Now some effects are by concept about bypassing HPs all together. So when trying to bypass all hitpoints you first hit the target and roll damage. Once damage is established you describe your action and double the damage. If that is enough to defeat the target the effect applies. Otherwise the target escapes somehow unscathed.

So imagine ripping the divine horn off of a vile demon. You realize this is the only way to defeat the demon before it devours your friends. You attack the demon and do 12 damage. Will 24 damage be enough to reduce it to zero hp? Double or nothing! Are you up to it?

 

[Doug McCrae]

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...

I think it's to do with the modern worldview of what's possible and what isn't. When the stories of Cúchulainn and King Arthur were being created, notions of what might be achievable were much broader. People simply didn't know as much then as they do now. We have a much narrower idea of what is, or could be, real. Everything that isn't that comes under the category of magic*. And the fighter isn't magic.

Why we want magical and non-magical classes in the same party, in a game that's intended to be balanced, I don't know.


*Or fiction. But in the same way, the ancients did not make a strong distinction between fiction and non-fiction. Anything could be real.

 

[Doug McCrae]

At the low end, fighters are just guys with swords able to do only what real life guys with swords can do, and wizards are just alchemists and sages, able to do only what real life alchemists and sages could do, and at the high end, they're both super-heroes, with several notches in between.

This is a strong idea. The wizard becomes more like an archaeologist investigating ancient ruins, and the martial types are his bodyguards.

 

[n00bdragon]

The problem doesn't come from option weak fighters or option strong, it comes from putting both those types in the same party. That's one of the weak points of 5e so far at least by my opinion. You have the option weak martial classes and the option strong magical classes in the same party.

 

[drothgery]

Super-human martial heroes are inherently necessary for the Fighter class to exist from 1-20. If the existing Fighter class was truly bound by normal human physical standards, then realistically Fighter levels should cap at 5 (a baleen whale, some 30-60 feet long is CR6 after all, and an ordinary human probably couldn't go toe-to-toe with a whale); the same would probably apply to non-spellcasting Rangers, Rogues, Barbarians, etc. If the Fighter (to say nothing of other martial classes) is to be a viable class that is a physical, martial class from 1-20, then it follows necessarily that they be capable of fighting and defeating monsters (or at least surviving) from 1-20, most of whom are beyond the physical capacity of normal humans.

I almost think the Fighter (and any pure martial class, really) probably ought to have a level cap in the 5-10 range (going by prior D&D standards), after which if you want to go on you multiclass to something else and acquire supernatural power somehow (paladin-esque divine champion, eldritch knight-esque sword magic student, psychic warrior-esque psionics, someone with an Excalibur-esque artifact, someone with Hercules-esque supernatural heritage).

 

[Imaro]

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the problem is that there really are two distinct, but broad, fighter archetypes and they maybe need to be seperated.

There's what I'll call the mythic fighter archetype which I guess would encompass characters like Beowulf, Hercules, Achilles and Sunjata. The second archetype is what I'll refer to as the Sword and Sorcery arechetype and includes such characters as Fafhrd, Moonglum, Conan, Gray Mouser and Imaro. I definitely see a sharp divide in the abilities and more importantly the tone and feel that these different takes on the fighter archetype provide. I guess the question is whether D&D is a game about the "mythic" fighter, the "sword and sorcery" fighter, or both... and if both how can D&D have these two distinctly different but broadly related archetypes under a single class or better yet should they even try.

 

[Campbell]

I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the problem is that there really are two distinct, but broad, fighter archetypes and they maybe need to be seperated.

There's what I'll call the mythic fighter archetype which I guess would encompass characters like Beowulf, Hercules, Achilles and Sunjata. The second archetype is what I'll refer to as the Sword and Sorcery arechetype and includes such characters as Fafhrd, Moonglum, Conan, Gray Mouser and Imaro. I definitely see a sharp divide in the abilities and more importantly the tone and feel that these different takes on the fighter archetype provide. I guess the question is whether D&D is a game about the "mythic" fighter, the "sword and sorcery" fighter, or both... and if both how can D&D have these two distinctly different but broadly related archetypes under a single class or better yet should they even try.

I think you're on to something there. I'd say that low level D&D can approximate Sword and Sorcery fiction with careful selection of abilities, but D&D leaves the realm of mighty thews and sinister sorcerers behind pretty quickly. However even at relatively low levels you need to be careful in the selection of abilities. Journeying alongside a capricious elf, a dwarf who can sense the ebb and flow of the earth, supernaturally imbued holy warriors who can bring characters back from the brink of death on a daily basis, and magicians who have sparks flowing from their hands can readily kill a swords and sorcery vibe. It only gets worse when supernatural horrors cease to even scare you. When your saying stuff to yourself like "It's just a vrock" the Swords and Sorcery element has long passed you by.

 

[Kraydak]

Let us be honest here. Anyone who want fighters to get narrative power to move rivers in DnD Next is doomed to disappointment. It would be a mechanical nightmare to implement. The closest DnD has ever come to that is Wish, which has never worked well. The best you could hope for is the Monster Manual containing River Spirits/Gods (or other place-spirits) which could be, shall we say, convinced to relocate. Note that that solution has nothing to do with Caster/Non-Caster. Note also with wizards and clerics don't really have any good "relocate river" spells either. Earthquake might get you somewhere, but beyond that....

So on the other hand, I am bemused by this apparent belief that high level spell casters can reshape reality at a whim, which would mean that non-magical fighters couldn't compete. DnD has never had those kind of spells. Again, the closest is Wish. DnD's spellcasters have not been as powerful as people seem to think they are. 3e's Passwall isn't that much better than a fighter armed with an adamantine spoon. Disintegrate capped at a Fighter's full attack output, and that is assuming the target failed their save.

To recap: if you exaggerate the abilities of a high level wizard or cleric beyond all reason, then fighters need amazing narrative abilities to compete. But wizards and clerics don't have godlike reality bending powers, so fighters don't need amazing narrative abilities. Which is convenient, because amazing narrative abilities are a really bad fit for DnD (go play Scion or something, or rather don't, the mechanics are dreadful, which is kind of the point).