D&D 5E Fighter Non-Combat Ability Brainstorm

[Tony Vargas]

FYI, I meant AD&D was a simpler game.

I figured. I was just pointing out that its actually very complicated.
A lot of us old-timers got so thoroughly used to a given ed of D&D that it feels simpler (second nature, really) than unfamiliar games that aren't a tenth as complicated.

but simple enough that a 10-y.o. could understand them--

Yeah, no. People always play that card, but it's just a not-so-passive passive aggressive way of saying anyone who disagrees with you us an idiot.
We're all old men, now, with the equivalent of advanced degrees in AD&D, and can't agree on what it really was/meant/said. That's not because it was ever simple.

Nope, don't like slots. We've tried spell drain variants and settled on spell points.

How is that any less a limit on something that, as rituals & cantrips illustrate, "should be at will?"

It is still limiting, but much more versatile than slots for the way we play.

Conversely, from a game design/balance, standpoint, WTF do 5e neo-Vancian casters need with more versatility?

HP are also limited, but in 5E refresh SO easily...

Nonono... the other way-round: hit point /are/ the limitation. The more and more easily renewed, greater the limitation they represent on the should be at will ability to effing use a lethal weapon to kill.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I figured. I was just pointing out that its actually very complicated.
A lot of us old-timers got so thoroughly used to a given ed of D&D that it feels simpler (second nature, really) than unfamiliar games that aren't a tenth as complicated.

Yeah, no. People always play that card, but it's just a not-so-passive passive aggressive way of saying anyone who disagrees with you us an idiot.
We're all old men, now, with the equivalent of advanced degrees in AD&D, and can't agree on what it really was/meant/said. That's not because it was ever simple.

How is that any less a limit on something that, as rituals & cantrips illustrate, "should be at will?"

Conversely, from a game design/balance, standpoint, WTF do 5e neo-Vancian casters need with more versatility?

Nonono... the other way-round: hit point /are/ the limitation. The more and more easily renewed, greater the limitation they represent on the should be at will ability to effing use a lethal weapon to kill.

Well, I would argue if AD&D was considered more complicated it was simply because it actually had rules to cover a lot of the stuff 5E is lacking in.

Um, yeah. I was five when I started basic D&D and well into AD&D by the time I was 10. Granted, I am smarter than the average ogre but, well, all of the friends I played with were the same age and understood the game, so...

Well, I said our SP are still limiting, and by more versatile I mean in what level spells I cast not which ones, just in case there was any misunderstanding on that. I can burn through points by casting high level spells only or conserve them and last for dozens of rounds by sticking to 1st and 2nd level spells.

Didn't I say HP are the limitation (i.e. are limited???). You can't have infinite HP after all. The lethal weapon to kill is limited only by the amount of time in the adventuring day. You never tire from swinging your weapon...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, I would argue if AD&D was considered more complicated it was simply because it actually had rules to cover a lot of the stuff 5E is lacking in.

You could, indeed. AD&D had rules, if sorts, for all manner of things - different, arbitrary, resolution systems for each of them, too. That's complexity.
5e, if there's a rule, it's probably something to do with d20+bonus vs DC, if not, DM judgement - which after examining, debating and discarding whatever quixotic Gygaxism 1e had to offer, is what you'd be doing, anyway.

Um, yeah. I was five when I

Yeah yeah, I get it, you're calling me a moron if I don't agree with you.

You can give up that tactic anytime you want to show basic respect and have an honest discussion, because I am sick to death of that card.
Yes, you & your little friends played /something/ while holding D&D books, back in the 80s. So did I & mine.
The difference is I admit it had little to do with the complicated game D&D presented, if you were reading at the level Gygax wrote to, and were telepath enoigh to divine what he actually meant. While you insist it's proof that his baroque circumlocutions, and heterogeneous, often contradictory sub-systems were "simple."

And I am sick to death of humoring that particular pair of nostalgia glasses.

(And, I'm sorry to have let that all out, at you, specifically, you were just the straw to that particular camel.)

AD&D, my first love in the hobby, which it's unlikely any other game will ever equal, was ridiculously, unnecessarily, gloriously, complicated.

Love it for that, or in spite of that, or have complicated feelings about it, but acknowledge it.

Well, I said our SP are still limiting, and by more versatile I mean in what level spells I cast not which ones, just in case there was any misunderstanding on that. I can burn through points by casting high level spells only or conserve them and last for dozens of rounds by sticking to 1st and 2nd level spells.

I saw any number of "mana" systems back in the day, and, yes, that was a notable way in which they increased the versatility, and thus power, of casters.

Didn't I say HP are the limitation (i.e. are limited???).

Those are two different things.

My point is that hps - the target's hps - are a very real limitation on the "should be at will ability" to kill things with deadly weapons. If we were really to have weapon attacks be at-will, every strike would have a chance of killing.

You can't have infinite HP after all.

No, but if your target could have unlimited hps, your ability to kill it with a deadly weapon would be reduced to 0/day, wouldn't it?

The lethal weapon to kill is limited only by the amount of time in the adventuring day. You never tire from swinging your weapon...

5e declined to include fatigue factors, sure, mainly because they'd been gone so long, obviously because it'd've been yet more complicated - but, more practically, because they're moot: if you're facing that many foes, you'll be dead before you get tired, thanks to BA.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You could, indeed. AD&D had rules, if sorts, for all manner of things - different, arbitrary, resolution systems for each of them, too. That's complexity.
5e, if there's a rule, it's probably something to do with d20+bonus vs DC, if not, DM judgement - which after examining, debating and discarding whatever quixotic Gygaxism 1e had to offer, is what you'd be doing, anyway.

Yeah yeah, I get it, you're calling me a moron if I don't agree with you.

You can give up that tactic anytime you want to show basic respect and have an honest discussion, because I am sick to death of that card.
Yes, you & your little friends played /something/ while holding D&D books, back in the 80s. So did I & mine.
The difference is I admit it had little to do with the complicated game D&D presented, if you were reading at the level Gygax wrote to, and were telepath enoigh to divine what he actually meant. While you insist it's proof that his baroque circumlocutions, and heterogeneous, often contradictory sub-systems were "simple."

And I am sick to death of humoring that particular pair of nostalgia glasses.

(And, I'm sorry to have let that all out, at you, specifically, you were just the straw to that particular camel.)

AD&D, my first love in the hobby, which it's unlikely any other game will ever equal, was ridiculously, unnecessarily, gloriously, complicated.

Love it for that, or in spite of that, or have complicated feelings about it, but acknowledge it.

I saw any number of "mana" systems back in the day, and, yes, that was a notable way in which they increased the versatility, and thus power, of casters.

Those are two different things.

My point is that hps - the target's hps - are a very real limitation on the "should be at will ability" to kill things with deadly weapons. If we were really to have weapon attacks be at-will, every strike would have a chance of killing.

No, but if your target could have unlimited hps, your ability to kill it with a deadly weapon would be reduced to 0/day, wouldn't it?

5e declined to include fatigue factors, sure, mainly because they'd been gone so long, obviously because it'd've been yet more complicated - but, more practically, because they're moot: if you're facing that many foes, you'll be dead before you get tired, thanks to BA.

Sure, looking up information on a table is so complex... Oh, and working with negative numbers! THE HORROR!! It wasn't that hard to figure out. Did we use everything in the DMG (especially), no, of course not, just like people don't use everything in 5E when the don't want to. That is, if 5E even bothered to include rules for something... much of which is lacking, unrealistic, and/or over-simplified because apparently people can't figure things out anymore.

You're tired? Yeah, so am I. Of people expounded the wonderful joys of 5E when over half the time everything people talk about is clarifying rules, lack of clarifcation, or house-rules/homebrew because things are missing. We've got pages of house-rules for 5E already and haven't even been playing a year, but I have maybe 3-4 pages for AD&D.

I'm tired of people saying AD&D had power issues when people (myself included) played it for decades without even thoughts of the so-called LFQW issue.

Anyway, mana systems don't have to increase the power of casters. If that is the goal of the mechanic design, then that is understandable. If the goal is to make magic rare and more difficult, it can be designed to do that as well. For example, with our system you can cast nearly the same exact spells as with slots in RAW, but you also have the option of casting more lower level spells (instead of higher level ones) and vice versa.

Your whole hp argument is pointless, by the way. Any strike could kill a target once the hp are low enough. That is the mechanic behind D&D and if you wanted each hit to potentially kill, having a much more lethal game, you certainly could.

Finally, don't even get me started on BA... what a horrible idea. They decided to go too far in the other direction when they got tired of issues created in 3E and on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're tired? Yeah, so am I. Of people expounded the wonderful joys of 5E when over half the time everything people talk about is clarifying rules, lack of clarifcation, or house-rules/homebrew because things are missing. We've got pages of house-rules for 5E already and haven't even been playing a year, but I have maybe 3-4 pages for AD&D.

Oh, I'm not actually asserting 5e is much less complex than 1e - it does have less the needless complications 1e had, particularly in that d20 has long since consolidated resolution on the d20 vs DC core mechanic but it also has more classes, for just one instance, and, y'know, skills, and, optionally, feats...

I'm tired of people saying AD&D had power issues when people (myself included) played it for decades without even thoughts of the so-called LFQW issue.

I'm sorry you're tired of those mathematical facts about traditional D&D class designs, even if you selectively ignored and/or appreciated the imbalances they created. You're certainly right to be tired of them: they've endured all this time with only the occasional blip.

Anyway, mana systems don't have to increase the power of casters.

In theory, no, but it's tricky to balance increased versatility like that. Clearly a mana system should come up short if used to imitate the default progression - if it's able to duplicate the default progression, then it's a flat power-up - but by how much? Versatility is very potent, but not as readily quantifiable as DPR, for instance.

If the goal is to make magic rare and more difficult, it can be designed to do that as well.

Sure. I've seen mana systems like that, just not in D&D. In Ysgarth, for an obscure instance, you started with a lot of mana, but it came back /so/ slowly (over /years/) that you prettymuch had to plan your career around managing it, or you'd end up not even a mage anymore. If you played like a D&D mage, you'd be burned out in a few adventures.

For example, with our system you can cast nearly the same exact spells as with slots in RAW, but you also have the option of casting more lower level spells (instead of higher level ones) and vice versa.

That's an increase in versatility with no corresponding reduction anywhere else, so a flat increase in power overall.

Your whole hp argument is pointless, by the way. Any strike could kill a target once the hp are low enough.

Right. Just like you can use an BM maneuver /until/ you run out of HD. They're both useage limits on "what should be an at-will ability." One's a resource on the attacker's side, the other on the target's side, but both prevent the attacker from just doing a specific action at will.

Finally, don't even get me started on BA... what a horrible idea. They decided to go too far in the other direction when they got tired of issues created in 3E and on.

Can't strongly disagree, there. It does shift a lot of scaling burden onto hp/damage, and it makes skills and basic combat ability fungible, 'warm body' contributions. It really erodes the sense of fighters (and rogues & barbarians) progressing in ability to /do/ things. Kill things, one at a time, stand up to bigger damage numbers, sure ,but that's really about it. It does not have the same chilling effect on spells, which can avoid issues with BA scaling by avoiding choices with attacks/saves, and still progress impressively in what they can accomplish.

 

[GlassJaw]

One issue is that there's not a whole lot of non-spell, non-combat options in 5e, as it stands.

Giving the fighter Expertise goes a long way with minimal effort.

This significantly restricts the design space for fighter non-combat abilities modeled after Eldritch Invocations. They can't emulate feats, enhance or provide proficiency in skills, provide spellcasting, or enhance basic attacks. So that means you're looking at secondary systems in the game, which are heavily weighted toward exploration btw (e.g. dehydration/starvation, encumbrance, and so forth)...and the Ranger's Natural Explorer already interacts with some of these, further limiting the design space. And the only social system I see that rules could interact with (and still follow the guidelines for Invocations) is the friendly/indifferent/hostile "status" of NPCs.

Some really good stuff in this thread, and these points raise some interesting questions about 5E's design space for non-combat options. I do wonder if this is a bit of a fool's errands, largely for the things that Quickleaf pointed out.

Beyond skills, there aren't a lot of design knobs that can be turned for non-combat. Giving the fighter Expertise is absolutely a quick and easy fix, and a decent one at that. But giving the fighter some additional skill bonuses continues down the path of watering down non-combat options for all the classes. If every class is getting additional skill proficiencies and bonuses, skills become more and more trivial.

Also interesting that the discussion turned to issues with the rogue. Historically the rogue was my favorite class; I enjoyed being the skill monkey. But I'm not as enthused with the 5E rogue. The rogue essentially has become the mobile striker. At best, they share the skill monkey spotlight with other classes. At worst, the rogue has been significantly watered down and lost a good chunk of its identity.

Maybe this speaks to a larger issue with 5E. The relative simplicity is a huge factor in its success no doubt. But with that simplicity, variation between the classes and options were sacrificed.

 

[Campbell]

I was 12 when I learned AD&D Second Edition pretty much with all the supplements. I learned how to play Third Edition when I was 14. I also learned rudimentary C++ when I was 12. None of these things were simple. Geeky kids have a pretty big appetite for complexity - especially needless complexity.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. If every class is getting additional skill proficiencies and bonuses, skills become more and more trivial.

That's kinda already happened, in a way, thanks to BA. An unmodified d20 can "contribute" when a check is called for. Level/Proficency doesn't count for as much as in all prior eds...

...the Fighter, obviously is one victim of that- forget about winning archery contest or killing 10 giants - but...

At worst, the rogue has been significantly watered down and lost a good chunk of its identity.

The rogue only shares Expertise with the Bard, so it can be sufficiently better than that unmodified d20 to acquire some identity as s skill specialist.

Maybe this speaks to a larger issue with 5E....variation between the classes and options were sacrificed.

With the slower pace of release, there's fewer options, sure, but the classes are plenty distinct (even if it is often distinction-through-disparity), in their features and spell lists...

But, now that I think of it, the Ranger, and even Barbarian, as well as the Rogue, and fighter - classes that depended on being stand-out "better" (best, or niche-protected only, even) at some task that's now a BA-compliant check, may have lost some distinction to BA.

 

[Ashrym]

Battle masters who take DEX for bow, plus the archery bonus, plus a bonus feat for precise shot so they don't shoot long range at disadvantage, plus the precision maneuver bonus is probably going to excel at archery contests because that many stacking benefits are going to work for him or her. Against an unmodified d20 that caps out a +14 min against someone with disadvantage. As long as the contest is multiple shots it should be an easy even against poor luck.

Bounded accuracy does prevent breaking away from the d20, but an archer fighter might not have been the best example. Fighters can sneak bonuses into that type of contest.

 

[Don Durito]

I was 12 when I learned AD&D Second Edition pretty much with all the supplements. I learned how to play Third Edition when I was 14. I also learned rudimentary C++ when I was 12. None of these things were simple. Geeky kids have a pretty big appetite for complexity - especially needless complexity.

It's the adults who struggle with complexity!