D&D 5E D&D Next Blog - The Fighter

[mudbunny]

One could argue that the tank in modern warfare is, with the advent of reactive armor, is actually the tank.

They go onto the field of battle, and they force people to deal with them or bad things happen to them.

That being said, trying to argue that a tank shouldn't exist in game combat because the same concept doesn't exist in real-world combat while having no problem with the extensive list of elements in D&D that have no equivalent in real-world combat is, in my opinion, a rather intellectually dishonest point to take.

 

[Miyagi]

Asymmetry

I tend to think that this is where editions differ most. I'm not sure it's possible to reconcile the fighter as "the guy who hacks at things with an axe until they die, and only that" with the fighter as "the tactical guy who solves enemies like puzzles and tactics his way out". The second could include the first, but I doubt the reverse is possible.

This is only worsened by the problem that some people limit what a fighter can do to "mundane-only" actions, which means that after a while he and the wizard can't play in the same game. How long that while is depends on when spellcasters get certain abilities - it never seems to depend on the fighter's own advancement.

 

[Kynn]

In my opinion, a fighter is Conan. Read the Conan stories and comics. That's what I want to see a fighter do.

What, not a barbarian?

...

Curiously enough, Conan gets called a lot of things in the titles of his stories but "fighter" isn't one of them!

Conan the Barbarian
Conan the Buccaneer
Conan the Warrior
Conan the Avenger
Conan the Swordsman
Conan the Mercenary
Conan the Defender
Conan the Warlord
Conan the Rogue
Conan the Hunter
blah blah blah

Clearly Conan is a hybrid Barbarian/Rogue/Avenger/Warlord/Hunter ...

 

[Kynn]

They can all use the bow. But the one you want is the Slayer. The one which has Dexterity as its second major stat and does additional damage based on dexterity. Technically an optimised archery slayer does about as much damage as an optimised melee one because they can start with a Dex of 20 and count it twice (or one and a half times in melee with melee training). That's even without the power strike.

While slayers are good at archery, their power strike ability does not work with bows, only melee attacks.

 

[Kynn]

Anyone insisting that tanking makes any sense at all needs to find a military unit in which it is one dedicated guy's job to get shot.

We're not talking about a modern military mindset, we're talking about adventurers in D&D, who since the very earliest days of the game have always, always had warriors/tanks/defenders keeping the bad guys off the squishy spellcasting wizards.

If you don't want to play something like that, you probably don't want to play D&D. A military wargame might be a better idea for you.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you don't want to play something like that, you probably don't want to play D&D. A military wargame might be a better idea for you.

Early D&D pretty much was a military war game of sorts. The main difference being the dynamic of player vs environment/ the world instead of player vs player.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay the point of this edition is unity.
So the fighter has to be one that always players to make the character they want while still making it good.

I see the keys to this in theses aspects: Access to Weapon Styles, Access to weapons, Strength of Defenses, Strength of special attacks

They you don't see all of 'em. 'Vancian' castes are coming back, so the new fighter will have to remain good (balanced, viable, whatever you want to call it, alongside something that can throw fireballs and SoD effects on a daily basis). That requires comparable power, to have comparable power unlimitted-use (every round the fighter could try 'Decapitation Strike,' if the enemy fails his save, he loses one or more heads) would be imbalanced, so that comparable power will have to have comparable limitations.

see the problem?

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I've read every thread in this post, and I would just like to add to the chorus who can't believe they're going backwards again in design.

IME people only ever took the first 4 levels of fighter (for the 3 feats) before switching to either the Barb, Ranger, or Rogue (or whatever other class they choose). What people view as variety, I viewed as a one trick pony. Literally, you spammed your one trick and hoped it worked while the real heavy hitters (the spellcasters) won the battle.

Also, if someone could give Krynn some XP for me for his post on the Tome of Battle, I would appreciate it. I already gifted him earlier in this thread and thus, am unable to give him more. Like Krynn, I wouldn't dream of playing a melee character in 3.X without the Tome of Battle options.

I really want to buy 5E, simply because I fear the end of DnD, but literally nothing they have previewed or talked about has been an improvement for me.

As someone who's been playing since AD&D, 5E as previewed is regressing the game. Which may be their whole agenda.

 

[Minigiant]

They you don't see all of 'em. 'Vancian' castes are coming back, so the new fighter will have to remain good (balanced, viable, whatever you want to call it, alongside something that can throw fireballs and SoD effects on a daily basis). That requires comparable power, to have comparable power unlimitted-use (every round the fighter could try 'Decapitation Strike,' if the enemy fails his save, he loses one or more heads) would be imbalanced, so that comparable power will have to have comparable limitations.

see the problem?

They just have to get the math, right.

It seem they are having the fighter's X attacks equal to the caster's attack or SoD spell.

The wizard's attack spell could deal average 20 damage with the average target saving for half 50% of the time. But the wizard's weapon damage would would be 6 damage at 40% average accuracy.

Whereas the same level fighter averages 10 damage a hit at 60% accuracy with weapon attacks.

So the fighter's 7 attacks would have the same damage output as the wizard 2 attack spells and 5 weapon attacks.*

SoD would have to be dalance around dealing 100% of the average target's HPs.

*math may not be completely accurate

 

[Tony Vargas]

They just have to get the math, right.

It seem they are having the fighter's X attacks equal to the caster's attack or SoD spell.

The wizard's attack spell could deal average 20 damage with the average target saving for half 50% of the time. But the wizard's weapon damage would would be 6 damage at 40% average accuracy.

Whereas the same level fighter averages 10 damage a hit at 60% accuracy with weapon attacks.

So the fighter's 7 attacks would have the same damage output as the wizard 2 attack spells and 5 weapon attacks.*

So, in your example, they balance at 7 rounds of combat. What if the combat ends on round two (coincidentally, after the wizard has unleashed his two spells)? Not so balanced anymore.

Yes, you can theoretically balance mediocre over a long period with awesome over a shorter period, using a bit of math, hps or some quasi-arbitrary quantification of 'usefulness' or 'fun' of awe-inspiring magic vs bland sword-swining. But it's very theoretical, because (1) you can't gaurantee they'll always get measured over that longer period and (2) because, really, no amount of mediocre ever really adds up to awesome, anyway.

 

[Minigiant]

So, in your example, they balance at 7 rounds of combat. What if the combat ends on round two (coincidentally, after the wizard has unleashed his two spells)? Not so balanced anymore.

Yes, you can theoretically balance mediocre over a long period with awesome over a shorter period, using a bit of math, hps or some quasi-arbitrary quantification of 'usefulness' or 'fun' of awe-inspiring magic vs bland sword-swining. But it's very theoretical, because (1) you can't gaurantee they'll always get measured over that longer period and (2) because, really, no amount of mediocre ever really adds up to awesome, anyway.

1) is the DM's problem. It the DMG tells the DM that the average battle is balanced at X rounds, then the DM knows softer enemies favor the caster and tougher favor the martials.

2) is the player's problem. The PHB tells the fighter's player that if they take the Exploit warrior feat to get the "Earthquake Strike" and "Hurricane of Blades" exploits it'll increase their spike damage and awesomeness at the expense of their basic attack.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In my opinion, a fighter is Conan. Read the Conan stories and comics. That's what I want to see a fighter do.

Conan's also the archetypal barbarian.

Another REH character who makes an excellent fighter archetype was Cormac mac Art.

But neither he nor Conan lived in a world near so steeped in magic as D&D.

If characters are balanced in between combat, skill and social spheres, fighter should look a little bit like this:

Fighter
Combat - 80%
Exploration - 10%
Social - 10%

So if a game is balanced among the three pillars, the Player of the Fighter might as well only show up about a third the time. Fun.

As opposed to say...

Wizard
Combat - 60
Exploration - 30
Social - 10

A vancian caster with decent spell selection can be 100% whichever of the three he needs with a day's notice, if that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1) is the DM's problem. It the DMG tells the DM that the average battle is balanced at X rounds, then the DM knows softer enemies favor the caster and tougher favor the martials.

Yes, it is. It's a problem for a DM to run a bad system. It's a problem because it constrains the kinds of challenges the DM can put before the party, and because it calls on the DM to fix a poorly-balanced set of classes.

2) is the player's problem. The PHB tells the fighter's player that if they take the Exploit warrior feat to get the "Earthquake Strike" and "Hurricane of Blades" exploits it'll increase their spike damage and awesomeness at the expense of their basic attack.

You assume exploits not in evidence, there. We were talking about peak-power casters vs no-peak-power non-casters balancing over time.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, it is. It's a problem for a DM to run a bad system. It's a problem because it constrains the kinds of challenges the DM can put before the party, and because it calls on the DM to fix a poorly-balanced set of classes.

I'm saying the DM should be provided with the tools to keep thing balanced while adjusting battles.

The game could assume the wizard cast either 2 strong spells or 4 slightly weaker spells per normal battle, 3 strong and 6 weak per hard battle, and 1 strong and 2 weak per easy battle.

The game just has to keep the wizard's spells per day regulated for the DM to use. If the wizard prepares 3 strong spell and 6 weak spells, then the DM know the wizard can handle 2 normal fights, 1 hard fight, 3 easy fights etc.

After that, it is up the DM adjust their encounters. And it is up to the player to manage their spells.

If the wizard player novas and easy fight, they will suck every following battle and the fighter will be the master of all those other battles.... Tough.

If the wizard player decides to save spells for the BBEG, they will suck every earlier battle and the DM will have to bump up an earlier encounter if they want to stop this.

You assume exploits not in evidence, there. We were talking about peak-power casters vs no-peak-power non-casters balancing over time.

The no-peak fight is not awesome, he is consistent. If the player wants an awesome fighter, they will have to build an awesome peak-power fighter.

If the game give the player options, it's up to the player to pick them. If the player wants an high damage fast killing fighter, they will:

Have to take peak-power encounter exploits
OR
Jack up their STR and power attack for +4 every turn.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm saying the DM should be provided with the tools to keep thing balanced while adjusting battles.

That's true of encounter balance, you can dial up an encounter vs a vancian caster if you have reason to beleive he'll be novaing, or dial back the nth encounter of the day if you're expecting them to be tapped out, and thus provide challenging encounters. In the one-encounter-nova, though, the vancian caster's power utterly overshadow any basic-attack-spammers who might have pointlessly accompanied them. Class balance in such a setup is only achievable at an encounters/day point. Which either constrains the DM, or detracts from the experience of the players, or both.

If the player wants an awesome fighter, they will have to build an awesome peak-power fighter.

If the game provides that option.

 

[Minigiant]

]That's true of encounter balance, you can dial up an encounter vs a vancian caster if you have reason to beleive he'll be novaing, or dial back the nth encounter of the day if you're expecting them to be tapped out, and thus provide challenging encounters. In the one-encounter-nova, though, the vancian caster's power utterly overshadow any basic-attack-spammers who might have pointlessly accompanied them. Class balance in such a setup is only achievable at an encounters/day point. Which either constrains the DM, or detracts from the experience of the players, or both.

Wizard nova Situation:

1 Encounter for the day: The enemies are so strong or numerous that the wizard needs help despite him novaing. The game has to reflect that.

Multiple encounter days: The wizards sucks every other encounter. The player has to live with his actions.

If the game provides that option.

It has provide the option or it wont be fun.

The game doesn't need 4E level balance but there has to be some sort of planning.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Here's a thought.

How about instead of complaining about the ranger (for example) being too focused and giving the fighter the ability to do all sorts of things that are tangentially related, why not complain about the fighter for being too broad a concept?

Remove the fighter. Replace it with a small number of more focused classes - archer, tank, dual-wielder, berserker. Whatever: the point isn't in what you replace it with, just that you go from a broad concept class to a small handful of more focused ones.

Seems to me that would fit in better with class-based design, anyway.

 

[Tony Vargas]

'Fighter,' like 'Magic-user' is a very bland, generic, unevocative name.

Magic-users were often called 'mages' and officialy became wizards (the level 11 magic-user level title, btw) in 2e. They have since spawned the virtually entire arcane source - wizards, mages, warlocks, sorcerers, artificers, bladesingers, witches, sha'ir, etc...

The Fighter's still the Fighter, though we have the Warlord now. And the Essentials Fighter bifurcated into the Knight and Slayer.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Here's a thought.

How about instead of complaining about the ranger (for example) being too focused and giving the fighter the ability to do all sorts of things that are tangentially related, why not complain about the fighter for being too broad a concept?

Remove the fighter. Replace it with a small number of more focused classes - archer, tank, dual-wielder, berserker. Whatever: the point isn't in what you replace it with, just that you go from a broad concept class to a small handful of more focused ones.

Seems to me that would fit in better with class-based design, anyway.

I prefer keeping the classes basic and doing more specialized stuff with themes. Once you start breaking down classes to be that specific you end up with dozens of classes for each major archetype. The four basic classes with multiple themes is easier to manage IMHO.

 

[Transformer]

I am attracted to the idea of the Fighter as a generalist (as opposed to a specialist), especially in terms of weapons. I would dearly love a fighter who carries a number of different kinds of weapons based on what's most useful in the situation at hand, and who's effective, equally effective, even more effective than everyone else, with every one of them. In a fight against a tough enemy, shield. In a fight against fleshy people, a two-handed sword. In a fight against lots of little devils, a polearm for control. In a fight against skeletons or oozes, a mace. In a fight against a quick rogue, a sword in each hand. And so forth, with meaningful and interesting effects for every one. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization are awful, doubly: one, they provide a +1 bonus to a core number (*yawn*), and two, they force the worst kind of specialization, the kind where you carry a greatsword because you like greatswords, but then you get used to its extra attack and damage, especially since you got a +1 greatsword, so trying anything else feels sadly gimped...

With magic items removed from the game's core numbers, we could actually manage a fighter who's a weapons master if we also keep weapons diversified and keep feats from forcing boring specialization.