Doing Wrong Part 2: Fighters, Wizards and Balance Oh My!

[Votan]

As I stated before I feel that early editions revolved around the idea of characters roaming around“dungeons”, looting, killing and pretty much just trying to see how far they could push it before they died, either through bad choices, bad luck or some combination thereof. Pretty much it was a game of survival. Something I didn’t touch on last time was the idea that the rules state, quite specifically IIRC, that when you die you start over again at level 1. This to me is huge because it means that the classes are not just archetypes that define how you interact with the game world, but they were also intended to be a risk vs. reward mechanic.

The Rules Cyclopedia (which counts as an older edition of D&D) had explicit rules for introducing higher level player characters (which I recall as I quite liked them). So the explicit requirement to start over at first level isn't part of all older editions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh the Pathfinder fighter is so much more versatile than the 4th edition fighter because of the sheer number of feats and archtypes available to the class. For me, the 4th edition fighter is too defined by it's marking mechanic and that's not what I want. If I want a defender type of fighter then I can build one in Pathfinder, if i want a two weapon fighting fighter then I can build one using the same class, if I want a polearm fighter then I can build one using the same class, if I want a master of archery then I can build one using the same class, or sword and board, two handed, switch hitter etc....

You know, other than an archery fighter I can do all those with a 4e fighter. And they are nasty. (I can also do an archer-slayer but that's another issue). And out of curiosity, how do you build an actual defender worth having with the Pathfinder fighter. (Also 4e has more feats than 3.5 did before Pathfinder - and as mentioned by [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] you have no fiat or control).

Unfortunately the intangible of a fighter, whether its their ability to lead or accomplish tasks outside of combat, has never AFAIK been given explicit rules in DnD (Maybe the thing about fighters getting land at higher levels, but I can't recall if that was optional or not.) Up until 4e it was stated in the rules that magic fire burnt, magic electricity acted as such, ice floats etc. This was definately explicit. I certainly agree that in real life martial training has a lot benefits outside of actual combat ability, which is usually very thin anyway especially with guns.

The thing about getting land and castles was a class feature and was given explicit rules. The 3.X fighter is a shadow of the 2e weapon specialist mincing machine.

 

[Remathilis]

4e shows how to handle this. The simple fighter does more damage. The simple wizard has one effect - say, fire - but can do more with it. Etc.

(In other words, @Neonchameleon is correct.)

At the risk of going into edition war, 4e showed ONE way to do this, and it wasn't a way that was overly successful with a lot of former players.

By there very nature, spellcaster's are complex. They have an additional resource that martial PCs don't have to worry about. A fighter has to worry about keeping his hp in the positive and that's about it. A cleric or wizard has to worry about when to use they're spells (do I heal now? Is this the fight I'll use my sleep spell?) There ARE ways to fix that (giving fighters non-renewable resources and give wizards non-expendable ones) but that edges you back to 4e's system (which hasn't been widely accepted). Replace slots with spell points if you want, but as long as wizards have to track spells/day and fighters do not, fighter's will be "easier" than wizards.

Setting fighter to "autodamage" and wizard to "all firespells" ain't going to fix that.

 

[Remathilis]

And out of curiosity, how do you build an actual defender worth having with the Pathfinder fighter.

Stand Still (Combat)
You can stop foes that try to move past you.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes.
Benefit: When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a combat maneuver check as your attack of opportunity. If successful, the enemy cannot move for the rest of his turn. An enemy can still take the rest of his action, but cannot move. This feat also applies to any creature that attempts to move from a square that is adjacent to you if such movement provokes an attack of opportunity

There are other feats like this.

 

[Neonchameleon]

At the risk of going into edition war, 4e showed ONE way to do this, and it wasn't a way that was overly successful with a lot of former players.

At risk of going into that territory, 4e showed a lot of ways. First there was showing how simple wizards can be done. Then there was showing how complex fighters can be done. Then there was resource and recharge balancing. Then there was narrative control for the fighter. Then there were theme benefits. It's not rocket science - merely a set of well known problems with well known solutions.

By there very nature, spellcaster's are complex. They have an additional resource that martial PCs don't have to worry about.

No. By their nature spellcasters have some options. Are you talking about complexity of resource management here or complexity of effect variety? Resource management is easily simplified - fewer spells, more at will spells. If our specialist firemage (or even illusionist - who cares?) has everything except the top two levels of spells as At Will - there goes the resource management problem. If they only have a handful of spells all in the same theme there goes our complexity issue. If they cast spells of higher level than our generalist casters there goes the power issue. This is not rocket science.

A fighter has to worry about keeping his hp in the positive and that's about it.

A fighter has to worry about tactical positioning and getting to the enemy.

A cleric or wizard has to worry about when to use they're spells (do I heal now? Is this the fight I'll use my sleep spell?) There ARE ways to fix that (giving fighters non-renewable resources and give wizards non-expendable ones) but that edges you back to 4e's system (which hasn't been widely accepted).

You mean it was rejected by a lot of people. Many of whom object that it makes spells feel like magic - as far as I know almost no one rejects at will spells - Pathfinder has them and D&D Next has them. Also if giving martial classes expendible powers was a problem there would have been a riot when the Barbarian was published for 3.0. What people reject was the uniformity.

Replace slots with spell points if you want, but as long as wizards have to track spells/day and fighters do not, fighter's will be "easier" than wizards.

How about:
Specialist Wizard: A specialist wizard goes deep rather than broad, mastering spells rather than merely learning them. They only ever focus on one single school (and conjuration is split). They master one spell per level and never cast spells they haven't mastered. They can cast spells they have mastered as if they were a wizard two levels higher - and any mastered spell that is two spell levels lower than their highest spell may be cast at will.

Simple, effective (possibly overpowered and you'd better give them spell lists), and cuts down a lot of the complexity so a decent fighter can be harder to play.

Setting fighter to "autodamage" and wizard to "all firespells" ain't going to fix that.

All firespells is a simple wizard. Autodamage is a simple fighter. Yes, a simple fighter is simpler than a simple wizard. But a simple wizard can easily be simpler than a complex fighter.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Stand Still (Combat)
You can stop foes that try to move past you.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes.
Benefit: When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a combat maneuver check as your attack of opportunity. If successful, the enemy cannot move for the rest of his turn. An enemy can still take the rest of his action, but cannot move. This feat also applies to any creature that attempts to move from a square that is adjacent to you if such movement provokes an attack of opportunity

There are other feats like this.

That's a start - but little more than that. Something 4e fighters get for free and PF fighters only need because AoOs were nerfed badly by 3.0. It allows people to not walk past the fighter if they would already take an opportunity attack. But honestly, that's the least important part of defendering. No one likes taking a free attack at the best of times. "Bodyguard with a sword" matters more - a 4e defender will you up if you try to attack anyone else. Or you try to 5 foot step (I note with amusement that Pin Down does no damage and requires being 11th level - and uses up one of your AoOs).

Show me what happens when someone's flanked by fighter and rogue. Why they don't just ignore the fighter and concentrate on turning the rogue to strawberry jam. Because that's needed for defending properly.

 

[keterys]

By there very nature, spellcaster's are complex. They have an additional resource that martial PCs don't have to worry about. A fighter has to worry about keeping his hp in the positive and that's about it.

That is the basic dnd method, absolutely.

But that doesn't mean that, if not for a bit of fate, we wouldn't instead have:
Wizards wave their wand and use one of their couple of spells chosen at character creation every round. They don't have to think about it, and they never run out.

Fighters need to worry about their stance, their opponent's stance, their weapon's reach and characteristics, their enemy's defenses and characteristics, their positioning with respect to other combatants, enemy's insight into their tactics, and their level of fatigue.

You know, the stuff I read about when I read fantasy books and there's a fight scene.

I wish I can remember the name of it, but there used to be little booklets where you could fight against someone with a variety of moves, and they had different results depending on the actions they took. The equivalent of declaring "I swing high and dodge left" and the other guy blocks high and lunges, and lots of permutations therein. Or - if anyone's read Wheel of Time, things like the blademaster styles used at one point in those books:

"I shift into Water over the Cliff stance, feinting briefly with Barrel Tottering, then smashing downward with an Owl seizes the Rat." (though I think we're all better off using a system more like expertise than that level of complexity

Anyhow, the point is that there are always options. Failure of imagination doesn't change that. There are so many options, in fact, that I'm glad that some people get paid to consider them all and try a variety out in different packets.

 

[Obryn]

At the risk of going into edition war, 4e showed ONE way to do this, and it wasn't a way that was overly successful with a lot of former players

I am not arguing it's the only way to do it. I am saying that the basic concept - that Fighters should have fiat capabilities alongside casters - is vital.

At the very least it's a minimum criterion for my own buy-in.

-O

 

[Obryn]

Stand Still (Combat)
You can stop foes that try to move past you.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes.
Benefit: When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a combat maneuver check as your attack of opportunity. If successful, the enemy cannot move for the rest of his turn. An enemy can still take the rest of his action, but cannot move. This feat also applies to any creature that attempts to move from a square that is adjacent to you if such movement provokes an attack of opportunity

There are other feats like this.

So... It's a feat 2 deep in a chain that fails frequently at higher levels against the enemies you really need it on and does no actual damage? Huh. Well, you sold me!

-O

 

[Neonchameleon]

So... It's a feat 2 deep in a chain that fails frequently at higher levels against the enemies you really need it on and does no actual damage? Huh. Well, you sold me!

-O

I missed that you do no damage becuase it's a combat maneuver check! That only makes people more likely to try running past the "defender" to splat the squishy - now there isn't any risk. Fail!