Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Savage Wombat]

OTOH, "let the wizard run wild and screw the fighter over at every opportunity" seems to be the default for some people.

I believe that this was, in fact, the reason the topic came up in the first place. Wasn't someone arguing that a fighter can't accomplish with Intimidate something a wizard can do easily with Charm Person?

 

[Wicht]

I believe that this was, in fact, the reason the topic came up in the first place. Wasn't someone arguing that a fighter can't accomplish with Intimidate something a wizard can do easily with Charm Person?

That's a bit like saying that you can't get the same results with a screwdriver as what you get with a hammer.

Diplomacy is more analogous to charm person than Intimidate and the results you get with a good diplomacy check are normally (in the long run) better than those you get through magical deceit.

And before someone argues that fighters don't get Diplomacy as a class skill, let me admit that's true (though not a problem in Pathfinder), but is easily countered by the fact that a fighter can still, if it is important to his character, spend character resources to make himself a charming sort of swordsman, with a high Charisma and skill focus on Diplomacy.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I believe that this was, in fact, the reason the topic came up in the first place. Wasn't someone arguing that a fighter can't accomplish with Intimidate something a wizard can do easily with Charm Person?

I don't remember. It was probably at least 100 pages ago.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Huh?

That does not make any sense. 3e fighters have a race, an alignment, and, if the player chooses, a deity; all of which speak to the inherent conflicts of the character. I fail to see how these things do not exist? In fact, they have existed in every edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

Coming from exclusively 3e stuff, I would agree with this, although I can imagine that 4e could integrate such things more closely with the game than 3e might. 3e can be loose in those regards and even clerics don't necessarily need to even worship a deity to actually be a cleric (except in some settings like Eberron I believe).

The degree has been different over the editions though. One of the things I'm thankful for that 3e did (maybe something in 2e, but I haven't looked at that in depth) was separate one's race from class, although still offer a nod to the race's preferences in the form of favored classes (which can be done better in 3e because multiclass XP penalties are stupid, but PF's way of doing it isn't balanced and suffers from power creep). Heck, there's direct support for dwarf sorcerers via racial substitution levels, which would definitely be out of place with earlier editions where dwarfs couldn't even use magic they were so resistance to it.

 

[Wicht]

Coming from exclusively 3e stuff, I would agree with this, although I can imagine that 4e could integrate such things more closely with the game than 3e might. 3e can be loose in those regards and even clerics don't necessarily need to even worship a deity to actually be a cleric (except in some settings like Eberron I believe).

The degree has been different over the editions though. One of the things I'm thankful for that 3e did (maybe something in 2e, but I haven't looked at that in depth) was separate one's race from class, although still offer a nod to the race's preferences in the form of favored classes (which can be done better in 3e because multiclass XP penalties are stupid, but PF's way of doing it isn't balanced and suffers from power creep). Heck, there's direct support for dwarf sorcerers via racial substitution levels, which would definitely be out of place with earlier editions where dwarfs couldn't even use magic they were so resistance to it.

I quite agree that seperating race from class was a good thing. But even in olden days gnomes and kobolds were enemies. Orcs and humans warred. Dwarves hated goblins and giants. Etc.

I might add that I was under the impression that 4e purposefully made alignment less meaningful mechanically. It seems strange to hear someone say that they made it more meaningful or somehow gave it a meaning altogether absent before.

 

[Imaro]

Perhaps. How does that relate to spell durations?

One of the main arguments by those who don't like 3.x is how trivially easy it is for Wizards to stock up on scrolls... so if a DM wants a game where attrition of spells is mitigated all he has to do is give the wizard the necessary downtime to make enough scrolls. the thing is unlike in 4e, this decision is left up to the individual DM.

Perhaps. I haven't played much 3E, but I don't recall seeing many 3E players argue that CR is as reliable as 4e's level-charts. How could it be? 3E is not based around the "metagame first" approach of 4e to assigning monster stats. (And this is a frequent criticism of 4e from 3E players.)

No that's not one of the criticisms most 3e players have with 4e it's the fact that the text and voice of 4e gave the impression to many (right, or wrong) that the correct way to use these numbers is to have the PC's only ever face appropriate challenges... that rubbed proponents of sandbox play wrong, proponents of sim play wrong, as well as others I'm probably missing out on mentioning here. So it's not that indie design brought about the idea or even the introduction of mechanics to judge appropriateness of challenges for players level, that was always there, so once again what exactly did indie design contribute to this... are you arguing the refined math happened because of indie design? Since we've already shown a progression from HD to CR the idea that balancing challenges against player level sprang full cloth from indie design doesn't seem to fit? Or is it that "indie" design helped contribute to that contradictory and confusing voice vs. examples vs. mechanics that 4e has.

I also see 3E combat frequently described as "rocket tag". This description could never be applied to 4e combat!

Yes, I have seen some people describe high level 3.x combat as rocket tag... but I have seen just as many or more people describe your vaunted pacing in 4e as a booring combat slog. Now supposedly this was mitigated some after 2 (or was it 3) monster manuals by changing the math, but there are still people who like 4e yet still complain about combat in 4e... so it doesn't seem this pacing mechanism in 4e is a universal thing at all.

I have played and GMed a lot of AD&D, and I know that HD/monster level is not a reliable predictor for difficulty.

But the idea and proto-mechanic for it were already in D&D, this idea of challenges consistent with level has been around since before 4e. It wasn't something indie design brought to D&D.

Also, none of this pertains to pacing or improv.

See above for why I find your arguments on 4e pacing less than satisfactory. As too improv... Again the math of the tools has been refined but the tools themselves have been there since before 4e.

I don't see how any of this relates to fortune-in-the-middle. I don't believe that 3E has FitM all over the place (hit points is the main place I can see) - the presence of FitM in 4e (also known as "dissociated mechanics") is a recurring criticism of 4e.

You do realize the original action points which, while different from those in 4e, were still FitM mechanics started in 3.x right, with the Eberron campaign setting? Optional of course because not every DM wants those type of mechanics or the feel they create to be hardcoded into their campaign. In fact there were quite a few FiTM mechanics that were left as optional because doing so gave the game a wider appeal as opposed to forcing them and the campaign feel they created on people, but they were there.

Yes. Non-combat task resolution. They did not have non-combat scene-resolution mechanics. Extended skill checks are not the same as scene resolution. Skill challenges (especially at complexities 1 and 2) can be used as extended skill checks. But have a look at @Manbearcat's example upthread, or even the examples of play in the DMG and RC. Those are not extended skill checks.

So we're moving goalposts... so that unless earlier editions had the exact same non-combat task resolution as 4e... well then it had to be indie design. How about refinement and evolution in a certain direction say from ability checks->non-weapon proficiencies->skill checks->extended skill checks->skill challenges. In other words you can change the wording to make it as specific as you like but the fact remains that D&D has almost always had a mechanical way of resolving non-combat actions it's just been refined and built upon as time passed.

But that fighter has a race. Perhaps a theme. An alignment and god that establish conflict from the start in a way that is not the case with (say) the default 3E gods.

As I've often said, if all the PCs in a 4e game are halfling archer-rangers, and all the monsters are ankhegs and kruthiks, then you probably won't experience this particular aspect of 4e. But it is very easy to do other than this in play.

Uhm I agree with Wicht this makes no sense...

In principle every GM can write a setting like Glorantha, too.

You asked what makes 4e suitable for indie play. I answered: its default setting does. The presentation of the setting doesn't give us a roll of years for Nerath, or even a geography of Nerath, nor the name of the local currency. Rather it gives us a mythic history which integrates the death of the last empereror at the hands of gnolls with a broader overarching narrative of law (and heaven) vs chaos (and primordials/demons). The world design foregrounds the stuff that indie gaming needs - vectors of conflict that is readily accessible to players and GM alike - and backgrounds stuff that gets in the way of scene-framing indie play (like endless world-building details that impede non-exploratory approaches resolution and prioritise exploration as a goal of play).

First let me say I am skeptical of all this 4e "conflict-laden" backstory being available to both DM's and players because I don't remember all of that being in the PHB (In fact the world as I remember it from the PHB was pretty sparse... In fact I don't remember all of that being in the 3 core books...

However putting that too the side... I don't see how the Nentir Vale is any more conflict-laden than the default setting of 3.x (which was Greyhawk). have you read over either of the Greyhawk Gazetteers that came out? I mean sure, you can prefer one over the other but they both have vectors of conflict, and I'm sorry but exploration being prioritized as a goal of play is not dependent upon the setting... I mean look at the 4e modules they play nothing like what you are talking about here yet are set in the Nentir Vale. What I'm getting is that you like 4e's setting better because it resonates better with you, not because of any objective quality that makes it better for indie play than any other D&D setting.

This may be true, but I don't see how it has much bearing on the points I made.

The point is much if not all of the stuff you equate to being brought about in D&D through the influence of indie design was already there in one form or another...

And this is the thing I don't get: people were right to drop 4e because it is too indie, but those who enjoy because it's indie are mistaking the nature of the game? How can both those things be true?

You're the only one claiming they are true... Personally I think many people have a problem with 4e because it tries to present itself as a pseudo-"indie" rpg and a traditional rpg at the same time (Ze Game is still Ze same!!), along with the fact that the presentation, the mechanics and their examples don't line up fully with indie or traditional rpg aesthetics and have all these holes, contradictions, tensions, etc. for those of us who didn't ignore swaths and replace other swaths with stuff from other indie games it just feels confused and "not right". That's why I think it's often hard for people to vocalize what they don't like about 4e. Of course this is just conjecture on my part like yours in the post above that I quoted.

I don't base my 3E knowledge on RM. I base it on my knowledge of the books, my very limited experience GMing and playing it, the more extensive experience my friends have with it, and my reading of message boards about it. (That said, RM and 3E have some features in common - the availability and importance of buffs; the viability of scry and fry as a tactic; a tendency to rocket tag in combat.)

I think RM is a wonderful if in many ways deeply flawed fantasy RPG. I wouldn't have the patience to GM it any more, but could probably be persuaded to play it without too much trouble. The same is not true of 3E. It doesn't appeal to me, because it seems to me to combine the D&D tradition with more simulationionst/points buy design (a la RM, HERO etc) in a way that brings out the features of both that I least enjoy.

So you don't like 3.x... understandable, but some of the things you claim about it are just dead out wrong... like the fighter comment.

 

[Imaro]

I quite agree that seperating race from class was a good thing. But even in olden days gnomes and kobolds were enemies. Orcs and humans warred. Dwarves hated goblins and giants. Etc.

Yep, this is exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about...

I might add that I was under the impression that 4e purposefully made alignment less meaningful mechanically. It seems strange to hear someone say that they made it more meaningful or somehow gave it a meaning altogether absent before.

Yeah I'm not even sure how @pemerton sees alignment factoring in here since it has little to no effect whatsoever in 4e.

 

[Aenghus]

I ran a 3.x campaign to 23rd level, and I certainly felt that spellcasters had vastly more options over non spellcasters, particularly fighters. This is my personal subjective opinion of course, but my players gravitated towards selecting spellcasters at higher levels, at least those with the system mastery to make them effective.

Partially, it's because I enjoy playing and running high level games, where the PCs can aspire to political and military power if they desire. 3.x Fighters tend to lack skills and stats appropriate to such games, and if they do invest in these areas they risk moving from "poor" to "average" socially, so still being eclipsed by other PCs,while being less effective at their primary job, fighting.

I disliked the way 3.x made it so difficult to create effective fighters, and that effectiveness often meant being a one-trick pony, such as a tripper build. Fighters were even more dependent on magic items to keep up, and were crippled in low magic campaigns, while paradoxically spellcasters had much less need for magic items and could potentially make their own.


There are mixed messages in the 4e rules, which is unsurprising to me - 4e was a big change, and the developers involved obviously had differences in how to approach the changes. Some of the concepts were rough and undeveloped at printing, and took years of thought and development to flesh out. As there are contradicions and rough spots in the rules, readers will interpret them in the light of their own preferences.

Like the 3e playtest often ran the game with 2e assumptions that no longer applied to a greater or lesser extent, I think some people ran 4e trying to recreate 3e, and balked when that didn't work out, as the two editions are too different.

Incidentally, I get a nasty taste in my mouth from anyone being told that their subjective experience is wrong. Errors in fact can be made and pointed out, but subjective opinions are matters of taste and not necessarily subject to rational argument. We are entitled to our own likes and dislikes.

 

[pemerton]

That does not make any sense. 3e fighters have a race, an alignment, and, if the player chooses, a deity; all of which speak to the inherent conflicts of the character. I fail to see how these things do not exist? In fact, they have existed in every edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

even in olden days gnomes and kobolds were enemies. Orcs and humans warred. Dwarves hated goblins and giants. Etc.

I might add that I was under the impression that 4e purposefully made alignment less meaningful mechanically. It seems strange to hear someone say that they made it more meaningful or somehow gave it a meaning altogether absent before.

The statement is just, well, bizarre.

There is a difference between opposition or disagreement (say, LG vs CE) and thematically-laden conflict.

The cosmological situation in (default) 3E is fundamentally static. The situation in 4e is dynamic - there is a mythic history that's on a trajectory. There is a similiarity to the HeroWars in Glorantha (which I think is not coincidental) and, outside of RPG fiction, to the End Times, Ragnarok and similar millenial/apocalyptic themes.

And choosing a race in 4e (except perhaps for halfling) locates a character in this conflict. Choosing an alignment likewise (which in some ways is closer to pre-AD&D alignment).

The best account of 4e's default backstory and conflict I know is by Campbell:

I tend to view 4eC as a visceral game about violently capable individuals who set out willingly or not to irrevocably enact change in their worlds who end up becoming mythic figures in their own right. This is highly reinforced in the assumed setting of the game with the backdrop of the Dawn War, tales of the fall of civilizations, and highly active Gods, Demon Princes, Primordials, etc. 4eC presents a world on fire in desperate need of heroes. Thematically it strikes the same currents that Greek Myth, the Diablo games, and Exalted does though tied to a more mortal perspective.

The 3E PHB and DMG do not establish a comparable situation. The default gods are not even placed into mythic relationships with one another (from memory, Hextor - Heironeous's enemy, in what is by default the most dramatic mythic conflict in the Greyhawk mythology - is not even in the PHB).

 

[pemerton]

I can imagine that 4e could integrate such things more closely with the game than 3e might. 3e can be loose in those regards and even clerics don't necessarily need to even worship a deity to actually be a cleric (except in some settings like Eberron I believe).

The PHB for 4e establishes a mythic history in which dwarves are the freed former slaves of giants, tieflings and dragonborns are ancient rivals with fallen empires (and tielfings with a diabolic pact heritage), and humans live in the ruins of their former empire Nerath. The DMG sets out a cosmology and mythic history that sits behind this backstory, whch the players also have hints of in the god descriptions in the PHB, the flavour text of powers, etc. And the MM characterises monsters by their relationship to this cosmological conflict.

It's quite different from AD&D or 3E.