Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[Njall]

So we can assume from this that all of the HOLD spells are out. Because a bad roll would allow the wizard to potentially kill the fighter, no save or die exist anymore, charms are also out, Wish doesn't exist, etc.

So...basically, play a fighter. Yah, no thanks.

No, but you could assume that the "hold" spells only last 1 round against an equal level fighter, so that the wizard has the time to catch his breath and move away rather than ending the fight outright.
Also, you could assume that charm spells won't work against someone that's actively attacking you, and that dominate spells only last one round as well.
IOW, you're assuming a lot of things that aren't necessarily implied by what Mearls said, or by the fact that fighters are supposed to be the best at fighting.

 

[SkidAce]

So we can assume from this that all of the HOLD spells are out. Because a bad roll would allow the wizard to potentially kill the fighter, no save or die exist anymore, charms are also out, Wish doesn't exist, etc.

So...basically, play a fighter. Yah, no thanks.

But people (not you specifically) seem to be forgetting relativity!.

Your fighter (level 10)and your wizard (level 10) in the party should be equal in some nebulous I'm not a game designer way for effectiveness.

And if the fighter should happen to pin down a level 10 bad guy wizard...in melee...he probably wins...if he can't he might lose (balance see?)

However, the more common situation is that the fighter and wizard (level 10) are going out to kill the big bad evil necromancer who happens to be 15th level plus (just a wag)...if the fighter happens to get one on one with that wizard...there might be a problem.


So best at fighting doesn't mean the fighter shrugs off all wizards stuff and sticks them in the heart Conan style, but he does have a good chance with level appropriate challenges his group is facing.


P.S. Why do we discuss fighter versus wizard in a vacuum anyway? Are the players always fighting each other?

 

[GM Dave]

But he's not saying "Wave=10 enemies"! You're assuming it. It could just be hyperbole, or he could just mean "3-5 foes (low level) foes a round", which is perfectly in line with what a fighter could do in just about every other edition of D&D...
And, BTW, a 4e fighter cannot kill 20-40 enemies a round, not even mooks, so I don't really see how " killing waves of enemies per round" equates "4e fighter".

Really?

In 1st ed my my level 10 fighter could attack and kill 10 goblins per round (they were in the 1 hit die category). This was to allow Hero's to go into Battles and kill swaths of Men-at-Arms or the equivalent.

In 3rd ed Fighters had Cleave and Whirlwind attack (with things like Bloody Road when you got up to higher levels or the Dervish Prestige class). I ran a Reach specialized Dervish and I moved and hit many opponents a round.

In 4ed, I'm not an expert on all the additional books that came out but from the core book that was first produced we have Encounter level 27 Cruel Reaper which allows you to hit everyone in a burst around, then shift, and do it again. That is potentially 8 targets per attack for a total of 16 targets.

At Epic level there are many ways to get that Encounter power back or to use it at second time and if you spend an Action point then you can do that Cruel Reaper and something else on the same round.

Of course, Wizards have Encounter 27 powers that can affect Burst 5 (Prismatic Spray) or Blast 5 (Black fire).

But minions are not a real problem in 4e if you have a Dragonborn on the team at level 1 they can do a blast 3 which could potentially wipe out 9 minions (equivalent in the system to two full opponents) with one breath attack.

 

[Mattachine]

Yes, thank you, Mike.

"Mundane fighters" exist in a world with dragons and spells. That means different from mundane in the real world.

I wish I had said that in the context of some of the other debates on this forum.

 

[Iosue]

The fighter taking out <waves> each round models which prior edition exactly as a base line?

2e. A 13+ level fighter with weapon specialization gets 5 attacks every two rounds. Figure a STR 17, and a +1 sword, and they get a +3 to hit and +4 to damage. Orcs have an AC of 6, and average hp of 4.5. The fighter will hit on a 2 or better and do at least 5 points of damage no matter what his weapon. The fighter probably has AC 0 by now, so the orcs will need a 19 or a 20 to hit him. And the same goes for skeletons, let alone the weaker foes like kobolds, goblins, gibberlings, and most humans such as bandits and guards. I think 2-3 of these type foes per round qualifies as waves.

Also, BECMI. BECMI fighters get an additional attack when they can hit their foes with a 2. So now we have a 13th level fighter, with STR 17, a +1 sword, and an Expert level of Weapon Mastery (+4), let's say with a sword. That's a +7 to-hit, which means any monster with AC of 2 or lower activates the fighter's additional attack. He rolls 2d8+3 damage: 5-19 points of damage. And if he inflicts max damage or disarms two opponents or isn't touched by an attack in a round, then he gets to force a morale check on 8 hit dice worth of creatures. Two orcs guaranteed to go down every round, and eight of them running or surrendering after getting just a taste of his prowess. Fighters also get another additional attack 24th level, and another at 36th level.

And these are still conservative examples. We're not talking fighters with 18 strength, or +3 magic weapons, or Grand Mastery of their weapon. A 24th level fighter with 18 STR, a +3 sword, and Grand Mastery gets 3 attacks when facing enemies with an AC of -11 or worse, and does 2d6+14 points of damage (anything with 2 HD or less is killed at will). Plus he does an additional point of damage for every level of AC worse than 9 (due to Dex or magical penalties).

Even in older editions of D&D, some effort was made so that a relatively high-level fighter could mow down waves of cannon fodder.

Roland also cleaved a mountain with his sword, this models which previous edition as a base line?

None of them. Certainly not 4e. Doesn't mean that 5e shouldn't be able to model high-memetic, romantic, and mythic heroes.

Edit: And wow, this thread really moved along while I was typing that out...

 

[Storminator]

So we can assume from this that all of the HOLD spells are out. Because a bad roll would allow the wizard to potentially kill the fighter, no save or die exist anymore, charms are also out, Wish doesn't exist, etc.

So...basically, play a fighter. Yah, no thanks.

Or maybe Hold (and a bad roll) means you stop the high level fighter for a round, then he rolls again, and you can't kill a high level Held fighter in one round if you're a wizard. Or maybe a high level fighter gets an action point that lets him shrug off a spell. Or maybe Hold only works on characters with less than 4 HD. Or maybe a high level fighter can javelin a wizard to death in one round, so you better hide instead of risking Hold Person. Or . . .

PS

 

[DEFCON 1]

So we can assume from this that all of the HOLD spells are out. Because a bad roll would allow the wizard to potentially kill the fighter, no save or die exist anymore, charms are also out, Wish doesn't exist, etc.

So...basically, play a fighter. Yah, no thanks.

No. We can't assume that. Because there's absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. Sure, a person could invent that assumption because they have some ridiculous need for the wizard to be the end-all-and-be-all of classes in the game and anything that is mentioned that might even remotely impinge on that has to be quickly snuffed out with veiled, sarcastic remarks... but they are in no way actually correct.

 

[Njall]

Really?

In 1st ed my my level 10 fighter could attack and kill 10 goblins per round (they were in the 1 hit die category). This was to allow Hero's to go into Battles and kill swaths of Men-at-Arms or the equivalent.

In 3rd ed Fighters had Cleave and Whirlwind attack (with things like Bloody Road when you got up to higher levels or the Dervish Prestige class). I ran a Reach specialized Dervish and I moved and hit many opponents a round.

In 4ed, I'm not an expert on all the additional books that came out but from the core book that was first produced we have Encounter level 27 Cruel Reaper which allows you to hit everyone in a burst around, then shift, and do it again. That is potentially 8 targets per attack for a total of 16 targets.

At Epic level there are many ways to get that Encounter power back or to use it at second time and if you spend an Action point then you can do that Cruel Reaper and something else on the same round.

Of course, Wizards have Encounter 27 powers that can affect Burst 5 (Prismatic Spray) or Blast 5 (Black fire).

But minions are not a real problem in 4e if you have a Dragonborn on the team at level 1 they can do a blast 3 which could potentially wipe out 9 minions (equivalent in the system to two full opponents) with one breath attack.

Well, first, with Cruel Reaper you can only shift 2 squares, so at most you're taking out 5-6 opponents with the second swipe; second, it's 1/encounter, so it's not like he's taking out "20 opponents/round", he can kill quite a bit of minions ( and only minions, because you're not taking out level appropriate standard opponents with a single attack, or even low level standard opponents ) and then he's back to 1 opponent per round, whereas the 1e fighter can go on killing 10/20 mooks all day long.
Third, it's nothing a 3.5 fighter with a great cleave and a reach weapon ( or, better yet, a spiked chain ) couldn't blow out of the water each and every round.

 

[dkyle]

Big thumbs up on this one, with this caveat:

I don't want any one class to be "the best at fighting", to the degree Mike suggests. No more than a minor edge to make up for a relative lack of non-combat stuff. But even then, I'd rather carve out a decent niche for non-combat capabilities for the Fighter.

There shouldn't be major tradeoffs between combat and non-combat in DnD. Not unless we're getting some serious mechanical support for stuff other than fighting, far beyond anything DnD has ever had. I'm concerned that they won't, since there seems to be a recurring theme of embracing DM fiat. And as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing as being "good" at something, if success or failure is determined by DM fiat, and not by mechanics.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

This article, in my mind, is pure win. But a couple of points

1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting!
Absolutely required. The Fighter class (and others in the Warrior sub-class) should be designed to overcome challenges by physical combat. Magic Users and Priest use magic to overcome problems. Likewise, Rogue classes use skills, trickery, deceit, stealth, and all sorts of mundane non-combat skills overcome challenges.

Fighting should not be the obvious answer to every problem, but a possible solution.

6. A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal
Define equal. The problem with a high-level wizard is that they have far more tricks then a high-level fighter. Take the example given: defeat an army of orcs.

The Fighter might be able to defeat them, but it should be over several rounds of combat. The fighter should win because he's tougher and has greater skill of arms then the army of orcs. The fighter should win because he's selected the correct tactics to face the army (heavy armor and a shield, or whatever the situation might demand).

That's the direct method. Unfortunately, that's what the fighter is trained to do. Sure, they might train the villagers to help or challenge an orc champion to one-on-one combat. Regardless, the fighter is going to have to defeat the orc army through force of arms.

The Wizard has a direct method too: fireball and cone of cold. However, this is arguably the worst way for the Wizard to defeat the orc army. What if he rolls poorly on his initiative. The fighter has a chance to survive the initial orc onslaught but the wizard doesn't have the toughness or skill of arms to last.

However, the Wizard has numerous spells to overcome the problem without ever appearing on the battlefield. He could raise an army of undead from the town cemetery, he could use invisibility and charm person to befriend the orc commander, he could use illusions to trick and demoralize the orc army. The wizard has a whole spell book of solutions that don't involve matching the orc army blow for blow.

Both characters have the means to defeat the army, but the fighter might expend 90% of his Hit Points to do it while a clever wizard might only expend one or two spells. The outcome is the same, are they equal?