Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
Mage of Spellford
Explorer
Hi,
I enjoy the trope (typical of many s&s novels) of the fighter shrugging off the wizard's spells and I heartily agree that the imbalance in 3/3.5e needs to be adjusted. Perhaps as the fighter increases in level his hitpoints should rise geometrically. Then basing saving throws on the amount of hitpoints remaining might be a reasonable mechanic.
To me hitpoints have always been a reflection of luck, skill, stamina, as well as physical constitution. A fighter with full hitpoints should be an adversary that no wizard can easily overcome.
Another idea: The easiest way to balance out wizards is to ensure that spells of power take time to cast. If a wizard is engaged in melee -- he should be able to cast (with difficulty) some sort of escape spell or a minor hindrance spell that can provide him the opportunity to escape but they should not be able to cast a melee ending spell while in physical combat -- that to me was the crux of the problem.
Wizards should be powerful spell casters that can take down armies but if you can get your hands around their throat it should be game over for them. Wizards of any level should not have enough hitpoints or high enough AC to survive hand-to-hand or even missile weapons for any length of time.
MK
I enjoy the trope (typical of many s&s novels) of the fighter shrugging off the wizard's spells and I heartily agree that the imbalance in 3/3.5e needs to be adjusted. Perhaps as the fighter increases in level his hitpoints should rise geometrically. Then basing saving throws on the amount of hitpoints remaining might be a reasonable mechanic.
To me hitpoints have always been a reflection of luck, skill, stamina, as well as physical constitution. A fighter with full hitpoints should be an adversary that no wizard can easily overcome.
Another idea: The easiest way to balance out wizards is to ensure that spells of power take time to cast. If a wizard is engaged in melee -- he should be able to cast (with difficulty) some sort of escape spell or a minor hindrance spell that can provide him the opportunity to escape but they should not be able to cast a melee ending spell while in physical combat -- that to me was the crux of the problem.
Wizards should be powerful spell casters that can take down armies but if you can get your hands around their throat it should be game over for them. Wizards of any level should not have enough hitpoints or high enough AC to survive hand-to-hand or even missile weapons for any length of time.
MK
Janaxstrus
First Post
I don't expect a wizard to survive a fighter beating on him for a few rounds.
I don't expect a wizard to survive a rogue smacking him around for a few rounds, or a cleric or a ranger
I don't expect a fighter to survive the entire arsenal a wizard can unleash in 10-12 rounds.
No class should be able to stand there leaning on their weapon while a 20th level wizard lines him up for his entire spell lineup and then shrug and kill him.
That isn't good design. If the fighter wins the most of the time when they start 30ft apart, cool. If the fighter wins 60/40 when they are at range, ok. If the fighter loses when the wizard has time to fully buff, at range and some bad luck, great. That sounds right.
The fighter being able to absorb everything the wizard can throw at him, being THAT much better than everyone else at fighting, is not ok.
the Jester
Legend
As the barbarian is a base class that has been in a couple of Players Handbooks, we know it's going to be a class. We've already been made aware of the "omniinclusion" goal.
As described, the fighter sounds likely to be over the top to me. Best AC, best hit points, best at taking down waves of opponents, best at dealing damage. So what exactly are the others doing? Having the wizard hold the fighters cape isn't really any better than having the fighter hold the wizards cape
That was my reaction as well. If a ranger is good but not quite as good as a paladin, and a monk is at best only as good as a fighter fighting unarmed, why have these other classes?
To me, being best at tanking -- at absorbing damage and holding off the foes -- should not be combined with being the best at dealing damage. Because, if you do that, the class is too dominant.
The article has a lot of words, but says very little to me. It sounds like a bunch of non-committal corporate mumbo jumbo, that's aimed to make people excited.
First of all, the play test being only pregenerated characters, is very disappointing to me. Honestly, they don't need "us" to test and see if the system works with a bunch of canned characters. They can do that themselves, and see what works, what doesn't. Closed betas are more than sufficient for this process. What they need the masses for, is stress testing. Where does the system break? What are emerging trends in tactics or builds, that need to be examined? Is everyone suddenly playing ranged characters and ignoring melee? Is everyone playing a dwarf? Why does no one even look at playing a halfling? These are the things that need to be nailed down in public play test with a large pool of players. So releasing pregenerated characters for play test is just advertisement and a way to keep people involved, but is not really all that encouraging of a step for system development.
Second, outside of conventions, people rarely play D&D with pregenerated characters. Creating your character is a major part of the D&D experience, and the part that's going to get the most heated feedback.
Third, putting the combat system through some ringer and setting it in stone, is the mistake that 4.0 did. As the system evolved, they ended up having to make significant changes, from introducing expertise feats, to adjusting numbers on all monsters. So the combat system cannot be designed independent of the capabilities of characters.
Now onto the fighter design goals...
1. Fighters are the best fighters... And wizards are the best wizards, and rogues are the best rogues. Well, I can live with those design goals I guess, as long as monsters are the best monsters! This is just a play on words... I could just as easily make the argument, isn't everyone a fighter? I mean we're playing adventurers who are at some point expected to fight. Saying fighters will be the best fighters sounds like they intend to give the paladin, the ranger, the rogue, the barbarian, the monk, etc. handicaps in a fight. Sorry, you're not fighters, you'll just have to resign to mediocrity. This is Sparta. Fighter will win. Doesn't inspire equality (which strangely is the #6 criteria).
2. Completely on board with this... Shouldn't have to pick up a controlling weapon and rushing cleats to perform an intended function. Feats/power/talents, what have you, should sufficiently cover the needs of a fighter build, without having to resort to magic items.
3. yeah, sure, whatever. I want my fighters to be jedi knights, so... I describe them with glowing swords, cutting through metal doors, and jumping 40 foot gaps like it's nothing. Feel free to come to my house and tell me I'm doin' it wrong. They can make what assumptions they will, for system design, but shouldn't assume they know everyone's campaign world. I'd prefer if some of the flavor was left vague.
4. Whoa! First I've ever heard this one. Wizards are versatile. Rogues are versatile. Bards are versatile. Rangers are versatile. Fighters? Meh, they swing weapons. Versatile is not how I would describe them in any edition. If they mean, to say "We will make fighter weapon choices flexible, so you can build an archer fighter, a polearm fighter, or a sword and board fighter with ease, or you can play a generalist fighter" then I'll say okay. People *love* hearing fighters are going to be versatile. But that's not really what they mean, is it? it's just a play on words. You can describe many other classes as versatile.
5. Fighters are tough. Is this a core rule? Or can I sacrifice some of that toughness to hit harder? Wait... Fighters hit the hardest, what am I thinking... Fighters are the best at fighting. And they are the most versatile. So no worries about sacrificing one aspect of fighting for another, woot! Fighters win! Am I supposed to get excited about this? Oh but people love hearing fighters are tough. And so it's out there.
6. Fighters and wizards are equal. Well, this is just a repeat of 4e design philosophies. Sure, people love hearing this too. But is it really telling us how they are going to be different and equal? What is equality? If a wizard can cast fireball twice per day, are they going to have fighters make moving and cleaving attacks that take down multiple enemies twice per day? Is that what they mean by equal? Oh wait... That's been done already, and they are shelving that edition.
This article says a bunch of stuff, that we all want to hear, but it falls to my ears like nothing more than a sales pitch.
And thinking about it more, while I jumped on the band wagon saying, oh that's awesome, when I saw #2, I now realize, despite my caution, I too fell for the sales pitch, hearing what I wanted to hear. They're not saying, they will not make controlling weapons, and rushing cleats any more. Just saying fighter's won't need them to be awesome. But when they exist, they undoubtedly will make them better.
Sorry for the negative tone in this post. But I hate sales pitches that are not based on fact, but merely based on promises.
First of all, the play test being only pregenerated characters, is very disappointing to me. Honestly, they don't need "us" to test and see if the system works with a bunch of canned characters. They can do that themselves, and see what works, what doesn't. Closed betas are more than sufficient for this process. What they need the masses for, is stress testing. Where does the system break? What are emerging trends in tactics or builds, that need to be examined? Is everyone suddenly playing ranged characters and ignoring melee? Is everyone playing a dwarf? Why does no one even look at playing a halfling? These are the things that need to be nailed down in public play test with a large pool of players. So releasing pregenerated characters for play test is just advertisement and a way to keep people involved, but is not really all that encouraging of a step for system development.
Second, outside of conventions, people rarely play D&D with pregenerated characters. Creating your character is a major part of the D&D experience, and the part that's going to get the most heated feedback.
Third, putting the combat system through some ringer and setting it in stone, is the mistake that 4.0 did. As the system evolved, they ended up having to make significant changes, from introducing expertise feats, to adjusting numbers on all monsters. So the combat system cannot be designed independent of the capabilities of characters.
Now onto the fighter design goals...
1. Fighters are the best fighters... And wizards are the best wizards, and rogues are the best rogues. Well, I can live with those design goals I guess, as long as monsters are the best monsters! This is just a play on words... I could just as easily make the argument, isn't everyone a fighter? I mean we're playing adventurers who are at some point expected to fight. Saying fighters will be the best fighters sounds like they intend to give the paladin, the ranger, the rogue, the barbarian, the monk, etc. handicaps in a fight. Sorry, you're not fighters, you'll just have to resign to mediocrity. This is Sparta. Fighter will win. Doesn't inspire equality (which strangely is the #6 criteria).
2. Completely on board with this... Shouldn't have to pick up a controlling weapon and rushing cleats to perform an intended function. Feats/power/talents, what have you, should sufficiently cover the needs of a fighter build, without having to resort to magic items.
3. yeah, sure, whatever. I want my fighters to be jedi knights, so... I describe them with glowing swords, cutting through metal doors, and jumping 40 foot gaps like it's nothing. Feel free to come to my house and tell me I'm doin' it wrong. They can make what assumptions they will, for system design, but shouldn't assume they know everyone's campaign world. I'd prefer if some of the flavor was left vague.
4. Whoa! First I've ever heard this one. Wizards are versatile. Rogues are versatile. Bards are versatile. Rangers are versatile. Fighters? Meh, they swing weapons. Versatile is not how I would describe them in any edition. If they mean, to say "We will make fighter weapon choices flexible, so you can build an archer fighter, a polearm fighter, or a sword and board fighter with ease, or you can play a generalist fighter" then I'll say okay. People *love* hearing fighters are going to be versatile. But that's not really what they mean, is it? it's just a play on words. You can describe many other classes as versatile.
5. Fighters are tough. Is this a core rule? Or can I sacrifice some of that toughness to hit harder? Wait... Fighters hit the hardest, what am I thinking... Fighters are the best at fighting. And they are the most versatile. So no worries about sacrificing one aspect of fighting for another, woot! Fighters win! Am I supposed to get excited about this? Oh but people love hearing fighters are tough. And so it's out there.
6. Fighters and wizards are equal. Well, this is just a repeat of 4e design philosophies. Sure, people love hearing this too. But is it really telling us how they are going to be different and equal? What is equality? If a wizard can cast fireball twice per day, are they going to have fighters make moving and cleaving attacks that take down multiple enemies twice per day? Is that what they mean by equal? Oh wait... That's been done already, and they are shelving that edition.
This article says a bunch of stuff, that we all want to hear, but it falls to my ears like nothing more than a sales pitch.
And thinking about it more, while I jumped on the band wagon saying, oh that's awesome, when I saw #2, I now realize, despite my caution, I too fell for the sales pitch, hearing what I wanted to hear. They're not saying, they will not make controlling weapons, and rushing cleats any more. Just saying fighter's won't need them to be awesome. But when they exist, they undoubtedly will make them better.
Sorry for the negative tone in this post. But I hate sales pitches that are not based on fact, but merely based on promises.
Iosue
Legend
Yes, except characters wearing armor move up to 20 feet.
Thaumaturge
Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)
How about we save the freak-outs about how under-powered the wizard is until we see both the wizard and the fighter?
Thaumaturge.
Thaumaturge.
I also find this worrisome.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
pauljathome said:As described, the fighter sounds likely to be over the top to me. Best AC, best hit points, best at taking down waves of opponents, best at dealing damage. So what exactly are the others doing? Having the wizard hold the fighters cape isn't really any better than having the fighter hold the wizards cape
People keep forgetting that there's a lot more to this game than attack and damage rolls.
You want the dragon slayed? Fighter's gonna do the heavy lifting, there.
You want the ancient text deciphered? Wizards. Oh yes.
You want the lock opened? Rogue! Get up here!
You want the townsfolk quieted? Cleric, please remind them how much they love to be alive, and who, ultimately, is responsible for that.
Combat. Exploration. Interaction. Adventures, not encounters.
Also, continuum, not binary. Wizards cast fireball, rogues might sneak attack, clerics can wallop and flamestrike, everyone can contribute to combat. Fighters are the best at it, though.
