D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Ahnehnois]

I think there's a level wherein the player/character dichotomy is both too strong and too weak.

There are times when the instructions of what happens in a spell, a power, an attack or what have you are so rigid that it gives the player no room to play. It's no better than pushing a button in a video game. There are times when such things are so vague or lacking in any kind of prose as to leave a player drawing a blank on how to express their action.

I think all powers/spells/attacks should include some level of prose to assist in player narration, but shouldn't dominate it or ignore it.

I'm on board with that.

 

[Obryn]

I think there is a middle ground here, and it results primarily around the kinds of saves the fighter could provoke.

The main source of contention would like be wisdom (will) saves. For example, I don't think anyone would have a real beef with a fighter being able to stun or blind a monster, especially if a check was involved.

Its the "goading" types of attacks that I think is where people draw the line. The "hold the line" kind of power that could make a mind flayer rush the fighter (even if it required a wisdom check) just seems too extraordinary for many players.

But I think if we left fighter powers in the realm of the physical, stuns, blinds, forced movement, immobilization, etc...I think those can be explained even without the presence of magic to most people's satisfaction.

I think that's a lot of it. More specifically I think it's the idea that a monster or opponent might be "compelled" to do something that would be uncharacteristic or tactically dumb. I expect fear-based effects would be less controversial than provocation-based effects like (sigh; can't get away from it) CaGI.

And while I absolutely love these sorts of effects, as I mentioned above, I recognize their incendiary potential and have no issue compromising on this point. If halfway still ends us up at a pretty good point, halfway is fine by me.

I don't think this is everything, though; just a few posts ago, "blind" was a point of contention, so I don't know where that leaves it.

-O

 

[JamesonCourage]

All respect to Obryn, I don't see how that could be fiat. Its not fiat any more than a Wizard casting a single target attack spell, rolling to hit, and doing damage.

Right, which the OP basically said a couple pages back. That's how he's using the term, it seems. And in post 136 you said "I beg your pardon. I guess I wasn't as thorough as I thought. I was trying to pin down Obryn's use of the term with respect to the thread that he had created (and my understanding of it)." I think we have that pegged down, decently, from post 146, where Obryn explicitly says "So more or less, the big differences are (1) that the player is in almost complete control (barring dice rolls) of what the outcome will be, and that he knows his capabilities ahead of time; and (2) the default result is that what the player has declared will happen (again, barring dice rolls)."

This seems to include casting a single target attack spell, rolling to hit, and doing damage.

Precisely. This is fiat. That is what my posts outlined. There is no metagame leveraged in interfacing with the basic attack system.

Right. I think that it's much clearer to use the term "Metagame Resource" than it is to use "Fiat" in this thread, especially as Obryn has outlined it.

Wow. You have not been keeping score if that is your sense of things.

Again, please don't say things like this. We're not supposed to assign motives, call people out on reading comprehension, or the like.

In this very thread its readily available (amongst dozens others that you have been a part of). Its connotation is irrelevant. Its a very real thing.

Oh, no, the disdain certainly is. There's hostility on a lot of different fronts. I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to deny these things. Again, though, if don't want other people to phrase thing in a way that "serves no purpose but to mock and make caricature of something we don't like", then my advice is to not do it yourself.

Its my understanding that you are not of age to have been playing D&D before 3e.

Not of age? Not old, you mean? But yes, I'm 27, so I'm between young and old, I think. And yes, I started with 3.0, but my father played 1e, and I had been aware of the game while growing up.

A considerable portion of the anti-4e sentiment is an exact byproduct of 4e's friendliness toward the metagame; and you can see it in this thread writ large (and plenty of others that you have participated in). I'm a bit baffled at your response here. What I wrote isn't even close to provocation. Its blatant truth. It doesn't mean that being antagonistic toward the metagame is badwrongfun...nor does it mean that endorsing it is goodrightawesome. Its just categorically true of the D&D culture.

Oh, I'm surprised you're baffled. I suggested you not engage in something that seems hypocritical. I'm not denying it's there; I agreed with Obryn about the futility of engaging productively with certain posters, even if I don't share the same play style he does. And, I agree with you here about why many people rejected 4e, much of it connected to metagame resources.

My point was that you're engaging in the same type of rhetoric that isn't helpful. And I suggested it stop. Do I think 5e needs to distance itself from metagame resources to regain a type of player? Probably. But I don't think it needs to happen verbally, or declaring the metagame abilities as "heresy" and those who like it "witches to be burned." They'd just need to leave those abilities out. It's the rhetoric I question.

Meanwhile, the response of "Because I want to" which is observably and patently destructive to a table...is pretty self-evident; don't you think? I mean if you asked your player "How did you do that", what would you say to them when they belligerently proffer "Because I want to" as narrative justification/resolution for the action in question?

Yeah. I still think it's less offensive than portraying things the way you did, but I think you're okay to call someone on it. I was just saying that if you don't like that kind of rhetoric, than you shouldn't use it yourself.

How you can compare those two is beyond me. Read the thread again (and any other thread regarding metagame mechanics/agenda) and tell me that D&D culture is not viscerally opposed to metagame play...demanding the tools that make it available to be excised from canon.

I don't know if you missed it, but I didn't say that people don't oppose metagame resource mechanics, and voice it. Often aggressively. I was just pointing out how you engaged things yourself. Perhaps a closer track of my posting history in the threads to come will make my posts make more sense. We'll see. As always, play what you like

I think there is a middle ground here, and it results primarily around the kinds of saves the fighter could provoke.

The main source of contention would like be wisdom (will) saves. For example, I don't think anyone would have a real beef with a fighter being able to stun or blind a monster, especially if a check was involved.

Its the "goading" types of attacks that I think is where people draw the line. The "hold the line" kind of power that could make a mind flayer rush the fighter (even if it required a wisdom check) just seems too extraordinary for many players.

But I think if we left fighter powers in the realm of the physical, stuns, blinds, forced movement, immobilization, etc...I think those can be explained even without the presence of magic to most people's satisfaction.

I think you're right (which you know from my XP comment, but since that's not public yet, I'm quoting you as well). As always, play what you like

 

[timASW]

I think this thread has shown me personally something I thought from the absolute begginning of Next but had dared to doubt for a while.

You cannot bridge the 4e, other e(any) gap. You simply cant. You might be able to get some 4e'ers to try something different for D&D a few times but they wont stick with it or spend much money on it because its not what they want. You might be able to get other e'ers to try something with more 4e'isms but they wont stick with it or spend much money on it because its not what they want.

Take myself as an example, i am vehemently opposed to meta game rules in game. To me they flat out break the immersion and destroy any fun i might take from the session. I would rather watch TV any night of the week then play a game like 4e. Even things like action points sometimes go too far.

What others dismissively call "mother may I" I call roleplaying, and the whole dang point of the thing. That came to exist in the first place because it was understood that there are just too many possibilities in an RPG to come up with rules for everything you might try to do and a good group of good people will be able to get along just fine with cooperatively working things like this out on a case by case basis.

What 4e people call "fiat" (mistakenly) like their provocation based abilities I call forcing an intelligent being to act ludicrously stupidly. And I'm pretty sure those same people would crap a brick if you had a monster use a come and get it type power on their 4e wizard. Its not narrative control of the game, its TAKING control of another players character (the DM's).


There simply isnt a middle ground to make both camps happy. Both already have something that really hits what they want from D&D.

Something that seems to have gotten lost is that thats just fine. Why should we all have to play the same game at the same tables? Why should we all have to play something we dont really like as much as something else thats already out there just so that we can sit at the same table? There are enough gamers out there for both types of games and both would probably be happier sticking with what they have then trying to be shoehorned into some kinda sorta middle ground.


All that being said, financially I think WoTC is best off focusing on getting back older edition gamers. We've had longer to get sick of our edition of choice and want to try something new then 4e'ers. 4e'ers also seem to have a siege mentality thats come from everyone hating the game they really like. That doesnt encourage someone to switch and try something new.

 

[Tovec]

Wow this thread didn't just grow legs, arms, a torso, but it graduated highschool. Wow.

You have watched the edition wars? 4e did nerf the damn spells. And IMO rightfully so. People for whatever reason hated that. They claim it makes magic no longer special.

I think (since I am one) that people hated 4e not because they nerfed spells. But basically what they turned spells, magic, non-magic, and generally speak all mechanics, HP and the pretty much most aspects of the game into.

Nerfing spells, specifically making them less powerful, isn't a problem.
Bringing them IN LINE with every other class - a problem.
Forcing everyone into the same power structure for 'balance sake' terrible idea.
Increasing the fighter, and all non-casters, to be parallel and equal to casters muddied the concept of magic is special. Mostly because it wasn't anymore.

Take a poll of 3.5/PF players that still play that, even the ones that exclusively play it and never tried (or did?, whichever is worse for the my example) 4e. Ask them if they find spells to be OP and needing of a nerf? I'd bet that ALMOST ALL would say they need a nerf. What they don't need is to be turned into (3.5) warlocks. Generally speaking 3.5 didn't like the warlock very much and so making all wizards into the warlock was a bad idea.
Now, take another poll, and ask how many would want ALL classes to be as powerful as the wizard. Again, you are going to find almost all to say they don't. That is part of the point of being a wizard, having special magical powers. The point of being a mundane fighter is in some sense to be mundane. If fighters are now as magical as wizards (a necessity to explain them in 4e) then it becomes a problem.

So, this problem you have laid out is false.

The solution, as already tried by 4e, is not to increase everyone but is instead to decease the problem. Fix the problem, don't solve for a different one that didn't exist. (Yes I recognize that 3.5 fighters are weaker than they should be but by in large THEY are not the issue.)

On the other hand the idea that the game should be Casters and Sidekicks (which is what it is if only some people have narrative control) is OK ... if you are explicitely playing Ars Magica. If the game sells itself about being about the casters and their sidekicks who do not have narrative control and therefore can't alter the plot but are useful assistants.

Arthur was the sidekick? Who knew. Because clearly Merlin was the one with the magic. All Arthur had going for him was a fancy sword (that he didn't make but was instead made by a caster). But somehow now that is a problem now?

Some of us think that choosing to play a fighter shouldn't mean choosing to be a second class PC. And that the heroes of fiction and myth are normally the fighters or the rogues - who generally show abilities far above those the D&D fighter has.

Some of US don't feel playing the fighter IS a second class PC. You are right on the "most from myth are fighters/rogues".

Should D&D be about Casters and Sidekicks? If yes, should it be branded as such and if not why not? If no, what should be done about it? More useful abilities for the non-casters? Metagame powers for the non-casters? Cinematic or even mythic abilities for the non-casters? Seriously nerfing the casters? Niche protection for the non-casters so that were they are strong the casters can barely compete?

As repeatedly suggested, here and elsewhere, the problem isn't raising non-casters it is reducing casters. There are dozens of ways to do this while keeping wizards strong but making them no longer impossible to kill.

The fighter is mundane. The wizard is magic. Magic > mundane. Is this the way it should be? No, but it's the way it is commonly perceived. And the fighter needs to stop being a mundane.

Premise 2: Fighter is mundane, check.
Premise 1: Wizard is magic, check.
Conclusion: Magic > mundane ... err.. sure, check.
Is this the way it should be? Except for that final conclusion? Yes, probably.

Over in the 14th level rogue vs dragon thread, a few posters are screaming to high heaven that the dragon shouldn't be hurt by mundane means because the rogue should be held to the same standard as a mundane human being. And you know what? That doesn't work. Let's take some mundane human beings, such as Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, or any other Olympic athlete.

Now what the hell are they going to do against a dragon, or a demon lord, or even a CR 3 shadow?

Correct. They aren't going to do anything against those things. For the record I'm going to come down in the highly resistant group as opposed to the purely immune but for this argument it is more or less the same.

The answer is nothing. Because when you get out of the realms of something mundane humans can hurt, no amount of human potential is going to save you. You need something special of your own. And the D&D fighter, who's sole claim to relevance is "hits things harder", does not have that. You cannot have magical entities with abilities designed to screw over mundane humans such as incorporeality AND give mundane humans the ability to fight them. You can have mundane human level shenanigans, you can have crazy-high superheroic screw you monsters that are immune to weapons Gygax-style, you cannot have both!.

Have you ever seen the show Supernatural?

I ask because the two main characters of the show (brothers) are mortal men.. who routinely kill things that are magical. They kill things that are highly resistant and/or immune to MANY forms of normal killing. How do they do this? Implements. Would a pure caster, a magical demon/god/angel/whatever, have an easier time killing these immune things? Absolutely. And yet, time and time again the brothers have shown they can handle things things just fine if they have the time, preparation, resources, or gumption to get it done. They don't need magic.

Now, back to the quote.

Can we have it both ways, with mundane "fighters" and magical (and largely immune) monsters? Absolutely. In this case the fighter is not merely a "hits things harder" (though they certainly do) nor more accurately (often getting headshots with their guns) but they are also highly resistant themselves (more HP ftw!). All of these things have been standard with (to my knowledge) every incarnation of the fighter. They don't however need supernatural powers to be effective.

So, yes, you can have mundane means defeating supernatural forces. They just need a leg up. I don't see anyone arguing they shouldn't get it.. except you in this post.

Many people will claim that this problem is solved by giving the warriors magic items. Most of these are inferior to wizard spells. It's a callback to the old Conan stories where Conan was going up against horrible thing of the week #57 which was immune to swords or whatever, and he mysteriously found the plot blade/had a wizard help him/had a dream from a deity/whatever. And this just doesn't work. You either have the question of "why not give it to the people with actual powers who can use it better," or the question of "why are these people crafting things which they can't use and can be turned against them?" And of course trying to disguise the fact your character is a commoner with bigger numbers who owns a hat of disintegration.

Right, so the solution here IS gear. The fighter needs to hit that incorporeal creature? Ghost touch weapons exist. They need to fight that balor, demon-bane weapons exist. They need to breath water? Water-breathing rings exist. Do you know what they don't need? ANY of these abilities built into their class. It has nothing to do with the aspects of hit things harder, more accurately, take more damage.

Also, "these people crafting things" as you describe them are not going to be as good at hitting things, as innately. If I had the training I could build a fire extinguisher. I'm still going to send the firefighter into the burning building. If I am the lady of the lake I know that excalibur belongs to Arthur, I don't go out and fight with it myself.

Now, if you want to have both magic crazytown with incorporeal ghosts, adamantine-skinned dragons, teleporting flying demon wizards, and the rest of that stuff while still having a totally mundane fighter class....well, you can't have it both ways. You can give the fighter powers like Beowulf, Archbishop Turpin, and other mythological heroes the fighter is supposedly based on yet doesn't represent very well. You can not have magic crazytown or phase out the mundanes after a certain point, but you simply can't have Michael Phelps fight Zeus and win. It just wouldn't happen. You can have Sir Bob the fighter awaken his demigod blood, pull mythic superhuman feats out of his ass Beowulf or Pecos Bill style, or have him pick up magic at some point and become a death knight, hell knight, or whatever, but he has to exceed the capabilities of a mundane human being at some point in his life or he'll just be stuck as the dead guy in magical crazytown.

I don't know what you mean by "crazytown" exactly...

But you are right, Michael Phelps ISN'T going to go fight and take down Zeus. Who is saying he is supposed to? If he DID have some demigod blood in him, a magical weapon, death knight training then fine these are feats FAR exceeding his natural talent to swim quickly.

High level characters will have access to these things, low level characters don't need them (or haven't found them yet). What is the problem, other than you want Joe the <insert job here, I felt like..>Barber to go fight Zeus one-on-one with nothing to help him out. Or you want Bilbo to single-handedly go slay Smaug in his lair... bypassing that whole BATTLE thing with an army?

The worst part is that he can be easily replaced by charmed, dominated, animated, or summoned minions who go in front to take melee hits. And you don't need to waste spell slots healing those. At high levels, you could make the argument that there's no IC reason to bring a fighter - he's endangering himself and causing the group to waste resources, and the only reason you brought him along is because Steve the player is a good guy and you still owe him five bucks for pizza.

What's wrong with that? If a rogue can be replaced by a charmed, dominated, animated, or summoned minion there is no problem - as long as he has the same set of skills. Is the problem here that the wizard can do these magical abilities and no one else? The wizard has too many options available to him. The wizard can do all these things. To me that seems like a problem with the wizard, not with the fighter. But perhaps I'm missing something...?

Also, would it be a problem if these options (perhaps in the form of rituals) were available to anyone who took the time to learn the trick to getting a monster/minion to do their bidding? Or would you then be worried that all wizards were going to be replaced?

One of the things the designers discussed early on may be of relevance here.

The mentioned that one of the issues that started to creep up in 3rd edition (especially towards high levels) is the weakness of damaging effects. Damage did not keep up compared to incapacitate and death spells, so players started favoring those more.

Yes, and so far in 5e we have a similar problem. That is signfiicantly more of a problem relating to HP and damage scaling than it probably has to do with those kinds of disabling effects.

As you said, "death is the ultimate status condition" and so long as it is easier or as easy (or quick?) to kill someone dead as it is so disable them in one fashion or another then that seems like the problem is solved.

Again, seems like a problem with the wizard getting too many/too effective at disabling enemies than the fighter's overall damage - at least most of the time.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Nobody ever said you couldn't? You can like or dislike it all you want, and I could really care less. But when it goes to this:


It sounds an awful lot to me like you're trying to tell me how my game is, or else asserting that "non-existent immersion" and "not bothering putting it together logically" are necessary traits of 4e and similar games. This is just one post of many like this; it's kind of a theme.

-O

Must be in your own head because I said nothing about "your" game. Are you insecure about something because you jumped to that conclusion awful quick?

I don't care what goes on in your games. I've seen people have fun with just about anything but I can tell you for a fact that 4th edition is a game that was designed mechanics first everything else later, doesn't take an overly observant person to see it and that's not what I want out of an RPG.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think this thread has shown me personally something I thought from the absolute begginning of Next but had dared to doubt for a while.

You cannot bridge the 4e, other e(any) gap. You simply cant.

Believe it or not, a lot of the fans of 4e have been playing D&D for a loooooong time and are fans of other editions. And are fans of every other edition as well. What you can't bridge is the 4e/refuseniks gap. The gap between people who think that level should reflect a character's power and influence and those that think that magic should. The problem here isn't 4e but 3e. 3e removed or nerfed literally every advantage the non-casters got. In 2e the fighter was genuinely powerful with weapon specialisation, was almost immune to magic at high level, and got an army when their relevance was starting to fade. This is a way that works for 4e fans (it's very different from the 4e way but it's another way that works). In 2e the thief had almost unique stealth abilities (they needed beefing up a bit) and the thief got Non-Weapon Proficiencies on top of that. In 3e the thief's stealth abilities became mundane skills anyone could take and their versatility went down as they were restricted to 8+Int skills to replace the 8 skills the thief skills had become - when everyone else got more skills. The rogue lost their fiat abilities - and they were intended to be implemented as fiat abilities. You initially rolled the Thief's Scale Sheer Surface for surfaces no one else could climb - and if someone else could hide the thief didn't bother to roll. Also in 1e and 2e levels were soft-capped (and the highest level character in Greyhawk was L14) - and the demihumans had started leaving long before that in 1e. The game changed at level 10 because of things like the army. Rather than continued as if there was no problem with the wizard doubling in power every two levels and the fighter continuing linearly.

1e and 2e have most of what the 4e fans are demanding - but implemented very differently. The problem here is 3.X fans who aren't even willing to contemplate putting this sort of class ability back into the game. It's either magic or mundane.

Take myself as an example, i am vehemently opposed to meta game rules in game. To me they flat out break the immersion and destroy any fun i might take from the session. I would rather watch TV any night of the week then play a game like 4e. Even things like action points sometimes go too far.

Yet such things existed in 2e - see the thief skills. You are illustrating where the actual problem bridging the gap lies.

What 4e people call "fiat" (mistakenly) like their provocation based abilities I call forcing an intelligent being to act ludicrously stupidly.

You can call them the opposite of what they are all you like. But it doesn't make it so. Acting ludicrously stupidly for a monster is not turning the wizard into strawberry jam unless there is a good reason not to. He's both the most dangerous thing on the battlefield and the squishiest. There are three ways of preventing this - and 3e uses none of them. The first is to make it dangerous to leave combat - 3e is the only edition where your AoOs are limited - have you ever tried to leave combat in AD&D? 4e defenders are less sticky than ordinary 2e warriors. The second is a full scale shield wall so you can't physically reach the wizards (done in the earliest editions). The third is close the gap in toughness a bit so the relative advantage of splatting them mage is less. 4e doesn't force monsters to behave stupidly. It makes breaking the mark into stupid play.

The problem, as usual, is that 3e is a massive outlier.

And I'm pretty sure those same people would crap a brick if you had a monster use a come and get it type power on their 4e wizard. Its not narrative control of the game, its TAKING control of another players character (the DM's).

Plenty of monsters have forced movement powers and lure powers. People don't object. Your point?

There simply isnt a middle ground to make both camps happy. Both already have something that really hits what they want from D&D.

This much is true.

Something that seems to have gotten lost is that thats just fine. Why should we all have to play the same game at the same tables?

Agreed. And the answer is "Because WotC want money."

All that being said, financially I think WoTC is best off focusing on getting back older edition gamers. We've had longer to get sick of our edition of choice and want to try something new then 4e'ers. 4e'ers also seem to have a siege mentality thats come from everyone hating the game they really like. That doesnt encourage someone to switch and try something new.

3.X fans have Pathfinder. Going after Paizo fans is a recipie for disaster. WotC is not as good as Paizo at what Paizo does. Which means what you have to appeal to under your route is disaffected 2e fans who rejected 3e. And who are still playing. And who are suddenly going to start to play.

Increasing the fighter, and all non-casters, to be parallel and equal to casters muddied the concept of magic is special. Mostly because it wasn't anymore.

You do know that "If everyone is special then no one is" was the villain of The Incredibles?

Now, take another poll, and ask how many would want ALL classes to be as powerful as the wizard. Again, you are going to find almost all to say they don't. That is part of the point of being a wizard, having special magical powers. The point of being a mundane fighter is in some sense to be mundane.

Then I guess they just don't want those hit points.

If fighters are now as magical as wizards (a necessity to explain them in 4e)

Because most fighters can create fire by snapping their fingers.

So, this problem you have laid out is false.

You are laying out the other problem. Some people want the wizard to shatter the power level structure and be the most powerful class in the game. Other people want level to be a measure of power because that's what it presents itself as. If you want to play Ars Magica in which wizards are explicitely the strongest that's fine. But don't try to present the classes as equal when you don't want them to be equal.

The solution, as already tried by 4e, is not to increase everyone but is instead to decease the problem. Fix the problem, don't solve for a different one that didn't exist. (Yes I recognize that 3.5 fighters are weaker than they should be but by in large THEY are not the issue.)

Replace the fighter with the Warblade and the wizard with the bard. Then we're talking.

Arthur was the sidekick? Who knew. Because clearly Merlin was the one with the magic.

Merlin in most myths is an NPC. Like Gandalf in Lord of the Rings.

All Arthur had going for him was a fancy sword (that he didn't make but was instead made by a caster).

The Lady of the Lake was another NPC.

But somehow now that is a problem now?

The attempt to make Merlin into a PC is a problem.

Some of US don't feel playing the fighter IS a second class PC. You are right on the "most from myth are fighters/rogues".

Then make the fighters and the rogues the star of the show. Stop the party from being a team up between Odysseus and Circe and return her to her rightful place. As an NPC.

As repeatedly suggested, here and elsewhere, the problem isn't raising non-casters it is reducing casters. There are dozens of ways to do this while keeping wizards strong but making them no longer impossible to kill.

The obvious one is to make the level structure mean something. To keep the fighter mundane say that the highest level mundane fighter is level 7. The fighter class stops there. There are other solutions. All save or die effects belong to the fighter. You can survive a spell much better than you can a sword through the eye. Or fighters are fast, magic takes time. If fighters act in 6 second rounds, and non-quickened spells take a minute to cast most of our problems vanish.

Premise 2: Fighter is mundane, check.
Premise 1: Wizard is magic, check.
Conclusion: Magic > mundane ... err.. sure, check.

That isn't a conclusion. It's a third premise. Last time I checked in this world mundane beats magic.

How about
Premise 3: Whereever they can directly come into conflict, Mundane > Magic

The trick mages have to do is to change the battlefield so they don't. They become like the classic thieves - and the masters of combat are the fighters.

I ask because the two main characters of the show (brothers) are mortal men.. who routinely kill things that are magical. They kill things that are highly resistant and/or immune to MANY forms of normal killing. How do they do this? Implements. Would a pure caster, a magical demon/god/angel/whatever, have an easier time killing these immune things? Absolutely. And yet, time and time again the brothers have shown they can handle things things just fine if they have the time, preparation, resources, or gumption to get it done. They don't need magic.

This is a "Magic belongs to NPCs" approach. (And yes, I know about Castiel). Magic belongs to NPCs is fine. What isn't fine is to mix the party and the power levels.

Can we have it both ways, with mundane "fighters" and magical (and largely immune) monsters? Absolutely.

We can indeed. What we can't have is mundane fighters, mundane-immune monsters and wizards who can handle the mundane-immune monsters. Kill the wizard as a PC class (or just shred their power to 3.5 Bard standard or below) and the problem vanishes. Mundane immune monsters with mundane fighters are interesting for the challenge. Mundane immune monsters with all wizards are there to make the wizards look cool. Mundane immune monsters with mundane fighters and non-mundane wizards are a "You must be this magical to play" sign.

Right, so the solution here IS gear.

Or the party wizard. And that is the problem.

Also, "these people crafting things" as you describe them are not going to be as good at hitting things, as innately. If I had the training I could build a fire extinguisher. I'm still going to send the firefighter into the burning building. If I am the lady of the lake I know that excalibur belongs to Arthur, I don't go out and fight with it myself.

Making magic users into NPCs works. The problem is the wizard class and the style you espouse. Kill the wizard and the game works. But "Increasing the fighter, and all non-casters, to be parallel and equal to casters muddied the concept of magic is special." as you said. And yet 4e fighters still aren't in the league of CuChulain or Hercules. But people object.

 

[FireLance]

I've seen people have fun with just about anything but I can tell you for a fact that 4th edition is a game that was designed mechanics first everything else later, doesn't take an overly observant person to see it and that's not what I want out of an RPG.

I should point out that even if a game is designed mechanics first, it does not necessarily mean that everything else is neglected. Ideally, of course, mechanics and flavor support each other and work towards the same end, so it doesn't matter which came first. The real trade-offs take place when mechanics and flavor clash - e.g. when a mechanically sound element brings with it the need for new and different narration (non-magical hit point recovery, martial daily abilities, come and get it) or when flavorful game elements are cut or given narrow mechanical effects due to balance concerns (charm person, polymorph, wish).

Frankly, I had hoped that 5e would have given us the best of both worlds and left it up to the individual tables to decide what to cut from their own games. If you don't like non-magical hit point recovery, martial daily abilities and fighters with the ability to provoke opponents into making tactical blunders, just don't run games that feature them. Similarly, if you don't like the balance issues that arise from spells like charm person, polymorph and wish, leave them out of your games (or at least, out of the hands of the PCs).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think there is a middle ground here, and it results primarily around the kinds of saves the fighter could provoke.

The main source of contention would like be wisdom (will) saves. For example, I don't think anyone would have a real beef with a fighter being able to stun or blind a monster, especially if a check was involved.

Its the "goading" types of attacks that I think is where people draw the line. The "hold the line" kind of power that could make a mind flayer rush the fighter (even if it required a wisdom check) just seems too extraordinary for many players.

But I think if we left fighter powers in the realm of the physical, stuns, blinds, forced movement, immobilization, etc...I think those can be explained even without the presence of magic to most people's satisfaction.

I completely agree with this - there are many ways in which physical combat can inflict the vast array of status conditions available to us, but there are few ways that allow control over the movement and actions of other parties. I would love to see a list of maneuvers that allow the fighter, rogue and compatriots to blind and stun enemies, to push them back, to knock them over, to disarm and penalise their ability to attack, to defend allies, to escape enemy maneuvers and so on. There's no reason a Fighter with a greataxe shouldn't have, at top level, a save-or-die beheading maneuver - it just needs balancing in terms of frequency and effectiveness against the magical equivalent. My biggest disappointment so far with DDN is that the expertise dice system *won't* allow this - round-by-round resource management limits the power of possible effects and trading damage for conditions is not a good model, since death is the ultimate status condition.

 

[Obryn]

Must be in your own head because I said nothing about "your" game. Are you insecure about something because you jumped to that conclusion awful quick?

I don't care what goes on in your games. I've seen people have fun with just about anything but I can tell you for a fact that 4th edition is a game that was designed mechanics first everything else later, doesn't take an overly observant person to see it and that's not what I want out of an RPG.

... Yeah, we're done.

I completely agree with this - there are many ways in which physical combat can inflict the vast array of status conditions available to us, but there are few ways that allow control over the movement and actions of other parties. I would love to see a list of maneuvers that allow the fighter, rogue and compatriots to blind and stun enemies, to push them back, to knock them over, to disarm and penalise their ability to attack, to defend allies, to escape enemy maneuvers and so on. There's no reason a Fighter with a greataxe shouldn't have, at top level, a save-or-die beheading maneuver - it just needs balancing in terms of frequency and effectiveness against the magical equivalent. My biggest disappointment so far with DDN is that the expertise dice system *won't* allow this - round-by-round resource management limits the power of possible effects and trading damage for conditions is not a good model, since death is the ultimate status condition.

Amazingly, [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] and I are completely on the same page.

-O