Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Grydan" data-source="post: 5958629" data-attributes="member: 79401"><p>I am perfectly willing to grant the unsupported supposition that in any "normal" game of D&D there will be more than one fight in a day.</p><p></p><p>However, I also take it as a given that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of D&D campaigns out there that do not fit this standard of "normal". </p><p></p><p>Games where, due to constraints of travel times and distances between combats, or a greater weight placed on social interaction, or exploration, it's not at all uncommon for fights to happen only once or twice a day... or week... or month.</p><p></p><p>Any time you use <strong>balance over time</strong>, you are making assumptions that everyone who uses the system uses it the same way. </p><p></p><p>If you use the old "wizards get great power at high levels in return for sucking at low levels" approach, you're assuming that all campaigns start out at low levels and <em>get</em> to high levels. In campaigns that don't follow that pattern, the wizard either gets to suck for no return, or gets great power for no investment.</p><p></p><p>If you use the "this class gets to be kickass for one fight per day, and suck for the rest, while this other class gets to be decent but not spectacular throughout" approach, then you're assuming there will be more days with multiple fights than those with singletons. In any campaign where this does not hold true, you have now relegated the "slow but steady" classes to permanent underclass status.</p><p></p><p>Who cares that you can only be awesome once per day if you're never called upon to be awesome more often than that?</p><p></p><p>I'm sorry, but no.</p><p></p><p>I don't play fighters because the main thing I want to do is hit things. </p><p></p><p>I play fighters for many reasons. Because I want to be a chivalrous knight, but without the mystical powers and religious trappings of a paladin. Because I want to be the poor confused farmboy who has been dragged into saving the world. Because I want to pull the sword from the stone and be King Arthur, not Merlin. Because I want to be a construct created for war trying to find a place in a world no longer at war.</p><p></p><p>In combat, yes, I want to be good at hitting things. I want to be good at fighting. It's the name of the class, after all. But being good at fighting is more than just having a good attack bonus and decent damage. It's forcing your opponent into bad situations. It's getting yourself out of the bad situations your opponent forces you into. It's about there being choices and options, and reasons to consider what you'll be doing on your next turn, rather than just handing the DM a pre-rolled sheet of attacks, saves, and damage and walking out of the room. Because really, if all I'm going to be doing each round is saying "I attack the closest enemy", do I really need to be there to do it? Call me when we get back to the part of the game where my character's choices are relevant.</p><p></p><p>Oh wait, because tradition dictates fighters suck outside of combat, there is no such part of the game.</p><p></p><p>The very same flat math and "anybody can try anything" that you mention only more strongly encourages fighters to stick to the rote routine. If I have no better a chance of succeeding at an innovative scheme than the next guy, then he should probably be the one doing it while I stick to the one thing I'm allowed to be marginally better at, mechanically. </p><p></p><p>Which of these two characters has more flexibility?</p><p></p><p>Character A has on his turn the option to do a basic attack (damage, no other effects), or make something up. </p><p></p><p>Character B has on his turn the option to do a basic attack, make something up, or use attack 1 which reduces his foe's speed, or attack 2 which forces his foe to move, or attack 3 which does more damage and knocks his enemy prone, or attack 4 which allows him to attack all adjacent foes.</p><p></p><p>Character B has every option Character A has, and then more options on top of that. </p><p></p><p>Add in utility powers, of which many are to do with exploration related activities, and others of which are to do with social activities, and it's really hard to see how anyone could reasonably say that Character B is not more flexible than character A.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>In one campaign I play in, I play a 4E PHB fighter. He's level 8. In combat, he has over half a dozen different ways to engage his enemies, impose various conditions, and generally making a nuisance of himself. If none of these are appropriate to the situation, I still have <em>every single option</em> that exists for the 5E fighter at my disposal.</p><p></p><p>In another campaign, much more recently started, I play a Fighter (Knight), level 1. It's a much simpler character, with no At-Will Attacks, no Encounter Attacks, no Daily abilities whatsoever. He still has more options than the 5E playtest fighter. He has two stances he can switch between, which modify every attack he makes. He has a twice-per encounter ability to increase the damage of a successful attack. He's also a great annoyance to his foes, as he's solid in every defence (making him a bad target), yet he can attack anyone who tries to move away, or attack anyone adjacent to him who attacks someone else (while also imposing a penalty on such attacks). He's got a very good attack, and solid damage. While being significantly more straightforward to play in combat than my other character, he's still more complex and flexible than the 5E fighter. Again, he has every option that fighter does, and more.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Grydan, post: 5958629, member: 79401"] I am perfectly willing to grant the unsupported supposition that in any "normal" game of D&D there will be more than one fight in a day. However, I also take it as a given that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of D&D campaigns out there that do not fit this standard of "normal". Games where, due to constraints of travel times and distances between combats, or a greater weight placed on social interaction, or exploration, it's not at all uncommon for fights to happen only once or twice a day... or week... or month. Any time you use [B]balance over time[/B], you are making assumptions that everyone who uses the system uses it the same way. If you use the old "wizards get great power at high levels in return for sucking at low levels" approach, you're assuming that all campaigns start out at low levels and [I]get[/I] to high levels. In campaigns that don't follow that pattern, the wizard either gets to suck for no return, or gets great power for no investment. If you use the "this class gets to be kickass for one fight per day, and suck for the rest, while this other class gets to be decent but not spectacular throughout" approach, then you're assuming there will be more days with multiple fights than those with singletons. In any campaign where this does not hold true, you have now relegated the "slow but steady" classes to permanent underclass status. Who cares that you can only be awesome once per day if you're never called upon to be awesome more often than that? I'm sorry, but no. I don't play fighters because the main thing I want to do is hit things. I play fighters for many reasons. Because I want to be a chivalrous knight, but without the mystical powers and religious trappings of a paladin. Because I want to be the poor confused farmboy who has been dragged into saving the world. Because I want to pull the sword from the stone and be King Arthur, not Merlin. Because I want to be a construct created for war trying to find a place in a world no longer at war. In combat, yes, I want to be good at hitting things. I want to be good at fighting. It's the name of the class, after all. But being good at fighting is more than just having a good attack bonus and decent damage. It's forcing your opponent into bad situations. It's getting yourself out of the bad situations your opponent forces you into. It's about there being choices and options, and reasons to consider what you'll be doing on your next turn, rather than just handing the DM a pre-rolled sheet of attacks, saves, and damage and walking out of the room. Because really, if all I'm going to be doing each round is saying "I attack the closest enemy", do I really need to be there to do it? Call me when we get back to the part of the game where my character's choices are relevant. Oh wait, because tradition dictates fighters suck outside of combat, there is no such part of the game. The very same flat math and "anybody can try anything" that you mention only more strongly encourages fighters to stick to the rote routine. If I have no better a chance of succeeding at an innovative scheme than the next guy, then he should probably be the one doing it while I stick to the one thing I'm allowed to be marginally better at, mechanically. Which of these two characters has more flexibility? Character A has on his turn the option to do a basic attack (damage, no other effects), or make something up. Character B has on his turn the option to do a basic attack, make something up, or use attack 1 which reduces his foe's speed, or attack 2 which forces his foe to move, or attack 3 which does more damage and knocks his enemy prone, or attack 4 which allows him to attack all adjacent foes. Character B has every option Character A has, and then more options on top of that. Add in utility powers, of which many are to do with exploration related activities, and others of which are to do with social activities, and it's really hard to see how anyone could reasonably say that Character B is not more flexible than character A. --- In one campaign I play in, I play a 4E PHB fighter. He's level 8. In combat, he has over half a dozen different ways to engage his enemies, impose various conditions, and generally making a nuisance of himself. If none of these are appropriate to the situation, I still have [I]every single option[/I] that exists for the 5E fighter at my disposal. In another campaign, much more recently started, I play a Fighter (Knight), level 1. It's a much simpler character, with no At-Will Attacks, no Encounter Attacks, no Daily abilities whatsoever. He still has more options than the 5E playtest fighter. He has two stances he can switch between, which modify every attack he makes. He has a twice-per encounter ability to increase the damage of a successful attack. He's also a great annoyance to his foes, as he's solid in every defence (making him a bad target), yet he can attack anyone who tries to move away, or attack anyone adjacent to him who attacks someone else (while also imposing a penalty on such attacks). He's got a very good attack, and solid damage. While being significantly more straightforward to play in combat than my other character, he's still more complex and flexible than the 5E fighter. Again, he has every option that fighter does, and more. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top