D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Manbearcat]

The issue is the ADEU proponents are reverse engineering a problem out of the solution they've already picked. The question isn't "How can fighters gain dynamic abilities and yet be balanced?", its "How can fighters have abilities on par with wizards that don't require additional rolls, don't sacrifice attack accuracy or damage, don't require a chain of feats to learn, and work whenever the player wants them to as long as the rules says he can use it?" Well duh, I WONDER what your answer is going to be?

This organization of the approach isn't correct. You've got the means and the sought end inverted. Its:

Sought End - Wizards deploy game-changing resources at a fiat type level of power (they don't have to barter or negotiate for the power and it is relatively codified). They not only don't have multiple rolls for most spells, several spells just flat out work without even a single roll required (or a roll against a defense that is so weak that it may as well be automatic). So, heavy fiat + math that favors the successful resolution of their heavy fiat. Given these things, how can fighters have an effect on the game on par with wizards?

Means - One of the ways (perhaps the easiest and most consistent/assured) is to give them the same fiat abilities; replete with exploits that don't require additional rolls, don't sacrifice attack accuracy or damage, don't require a chain of feats to learn, and work whenever the player wants them to as long as the rules says he can use it.

I guess there is no rule saying a fighter HAS to open with his encounter powers. Or use his daily at all, or even use his at-wills rather than just go basic attack for fights. And yes, Page 42 exists (but is, as Obryn points out, the opposite of fiat as its COMPLETELY mother-may-I). But in my year of playing 4e, I never saw a fight that didn't go as discussed. Foe is slowed, foe is prone, push, push, cleave, push, push, push, dead.

That is not the fault of the system. That is user discretion. My group almost never has a stagnant fight in the combats I put before them...there is never some boring script. We use L + 2 as default so virtually no combats are "mop-up-duty." We have terrain, hazards in almost every single fight that can be interfaced with to make the fight more dynamic. Page 42 is used almost every combat at least once and there is absolutely no "mother may I" involved. Its always:

PC: "I'm near this boiling stewpot, hanging on the spit over the fire...I'm going to wrongfoot him into the fire with a level 7 limited use (level 7 encounter power equivalent)."

Me: "Ok." Consult page 42: This Striker wants to use 7th level encounter power for a slide 2 and to have fire damage added on. That's an average control effect + an average ongoing damage of 5 so I'll use the Page 42 Medium Limited Use Damage Expression on the table. Attack is Weapon Dex vs Reflex. Hit = 3d10 + 5 fire damage, slide 2 into difficult terrain, ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends); 2 medium control effects. The rogue would be Weapon Dex vs Ref, do 3d8 + 12 and blind (1 powerful control effect) until end of next turn with the encounter power.

Describe intent. Say yes. Quickly and easily adjudicate via p42 in about 10 seconds. Roll dice. Narrate results. Thematic, dynamic, balanced results with minimal handling time. Win.

What you described bears no resemblance to my table. Not 4 years ago and certainly not now that we're all exceedingly proficient with the ruleset and our chemistry with it and each other.

 

[Remathilis]

This organization of the approach isn't correct. You've got the means and the sought end inverted. Its:

Sought End - Wizards deploy game-changing resources at a fiat type level of power (they don't have to barter or negotiate for the power and it is relatively codified). They not only don't have multiple rolls for most spells, several spells just flat out work without even a single roll required (or a roll against a defense that is so weak that it may as well be automatic). So, heavy fiat + math that favors the successful resolution of their heavy fiat. Given these things, how can fighters have an effect on the game on par with wizards?

Means - One of the ways (perhaps the easiest and most consistent/assured) is to give them the same fiat abilities; replete with exploits that don't require additional rolls, don't sacrifice attack accuracy or damage, don't require a chain of feats to learn, and work whenever the player wants them to as long as the rules says he can use it.

The sought end is the first problem with this equation, because it pretty much says "Wizards are broken. The answer is to break fighter's too." Believe it or not, this is my biggest contention with Pathfinder; its answer to caster dominance is to crank all the other classes up to 11 and let them go. More hp, more class powers, no dead levels, etc. Sure, it has some nice fixes to 3.5 problems (skill points, combat maneuvers) but its way of fixing class balance is to give everyone more. Rage powers. Song powers. Ki powers. Rogue tricks. Bloodline powers. Dispel the notion that there is a n00b class in PF, almost every one of them demands system mastery to play now!

The aim SHOULD be: "Wizards deploy game-changing resources at a fiat type level of power (they don't have to barter or negotiate for the power and it is relatively codified). They not only don't have multiple rolls for most spells, several spells just flat out work without even a single roll required (or a roll against a defense that is so weak that it may as well be automatic). So, heavy fiat + math that favors the successful resolution of their heavy fiat. What can be done to limit the automatic success magic has and bring it more in-line with the abilities of mundane powers?"

Let me give you a (non-fighter) example: Invisibility is pretty much a free, automatically successful sneak roll. A wizard using invisibility is better at sneaking than a rogue many levels higher than him. How can we fix this?

a.) Weaken Invisibility so that it instead provides bonuses to sneak on par with a high level rogue, perhaps with some added "magical" element (no need for cover, done in plain sight, works on all vision types) so that invisibility isn't strictly better than a rogue's skill.
b.) Give rogues a base floor of 13+dex mod on all sneak rolls, putting it on par with invisibility and eliminating sneak rolls for DCs below 14.

Guess which way Next was heading? >_<

That is not the fault of the system. That is user discretion. My group almost never has a stagnant fight in the combats I put before them...there is never some boring script. We use L + 2 as default so virtually no combats are "mop-up-duty." We have terrain, hazards in almost every single fight that can be interfaced with to make the fight more dynamic. Page 42 is used almost every combat at least once and there is absolutely no "mother may I" involved. Its always:

PC: "I'm near this boiling stewpot, hanging on the spit over the fire...I'm going to wrongfoot him into the fire with a level 7 limited use (level 7 encounter power equivalent)."

Me: "Ok." Consult page 42: This Striker wants to use 7th level encounter power for a slide 2 and to have fire damage added on. That's an average control effect + an average ongoing damage of 5 so I'll use the Page 42 Medium Limited Use Damage Expression on the table. Attack is Weapon Dex vs Reflex. Hit = 3d10 + 5 fire damage, slide 2 into difficult terrain, ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends); 2 medium control effects. The rogue would be Weapon Dex vs Ref, do 3d8 + 12 and blind (1 powerful control effect) until end of next turn with the encounter power.

Describe intent. Say yes. Quickly and easily adjudicate via p42 in about 10 seconds. Roll dice. Narrate results. Thematic, dynamic, balanced results with minimal handling time. Win.

What you described bears no resemblance to my table. Not 4 years ago and certainly not now that we're all exceedingly proficient with the ruleset and our chemistry with it and each other.

Two questions.

1.) Can the fighter "wrongfoot" the monster into the fire again? Can another PC try it on a different monster? Why not? Why can't he tide of iron him into the fire's square and achieve the same result? How does the player KNOW its a level-7 encounter power? Where did he come up with that? Where did YOU come up with all that 5 fire and slide and blind and control/striker thingamjig because thats NOT on my copy of page 42! I got a bunch of DCs and damage ranges per level and jack SQUAT about making your own encounter powers. Was that DMG2?
2.) How, really, is that different than "I push him into the firepit. DM: Great, make a CMB roll vs. his CMD. If you hit, he takes 3d6 fire damage and is on fire for 1d4 rounds?"

 

[B.T.]

That's great, but I guarantee your group is in the minority. It's like when I say that my group doesn't have problems with balance in 3e--that's entirely dependent on the players and playstyle. In my (admittedly limited) experience with 4e, people are choosing between their powers, not looking for something unique and interesting to do in the game world. My game time has been much as Remathilis describes, only less competent because the rogue is not sneak attacking and off throwing daggers.

I suppose what it comes down to--as always--is your group of players. If the DM and group are good, the game will play well. If they're not, then good rules don't much matter.

In terms of what I'd like to see for 5e, I want a table that is similar to the list in 4e but with more discretion to the DM. Basically, roll 1d20, add the appropriate stat, and compare the results to the table. The table then has a list of effects that can be applied based on the success (or failure) of your roll, depending on the situation and what you tried to do.

 

[Obryn]

The issue is the ADEU proponents are reverse engineering a problem out of the solution they've already picked. The question isn't "How can fighters gain dynamic abilities and yet be balanced?", its "How can fighters have abilities on par with wizards that don't require additional rolls, don't sacrifice attack accuracy or damage, don't require a chain of feats to learn, and work whenever the player wants them to as long as the rules says he can use it?" Well duh, I WONDER what your answer is going to be?

How is, "I really liked the way some parts of this worked and the effects it had on the game; let's find another good way to do this" an invented problem.

It's no more an invented problem than starting with a goal of "Everything a Fighter can do should be at-will" or starting from the assumption that a feat-based Fighter is a good idea.

I'm not wedded to an AEDU framework. In fact, I don't think it belongs in Next; I already have an edition that explored that idea quite thoroughly. I'm looking for other ways to manage it that meet my own criteria, and so far most of what I've gotten is either, "Yo, dude, the PF fighter is bomb!" or "Let's nuke everyone's ability to determine the flow of battle."

-O

 

[n00bdragon]

Clearly we have two things here:
In 3e casters have this strong fiat ability and mundane classes do not. This much is agreed upon by everyone I think and isn't worth debating. You could put this on a scale of "fiatness" that ranges from say 1 to 10 with 1 being a low level of "fiatness" and 10 being a high level of "fiatness". Neither side is inherently better though individuals may prefer one level or another in general or for specific classes.

You following me so far?

The question above can have just one of a few answers:
A. Lower everybody to about the same "fiatness". The game will not allow any player to have much "fiatness" and the majority of classes will find the scope of what they can do using hard-coded mechanics reduced. This will leave everyone carving through HP Tofu and engaging in "Mother May I" with the DM.
B. Raise everybody to about the same "fiatness". The game will allow everyone to have a large degree of "fiatness". The majority of classes will find the scope of what they can do using hard-coded mechanics increased. Mundane classes will need to gain abilities that could only be described as super powers.
C. Determine a level of "fiatness" somewhere in the middle and adjust everyone to that level. Mundane classes will gain a great deal of "unrealistic" abilities while casters will lose a great deal of what makes them special.
D. Allow different classes to have different levels of "fiatness". This is the default assumption of all editions of D&D prior to 4e. The quality of this method has a wide variation and depends greatly on the particular table the game is played at.

Clearly, there exist people in this very thread who prefer each of these options. Ostensibly 5e intends to cater to all these needs but there are a few problems with that approach. Methods A, B, and C all risk alienating members of a group who don't prefer the chosen level of "fiatness". Players who just want to hit things will be swamped in a game of B or C. Players who enjoy complex characters with lots of abilities and a high degree of power will feel restricted in a game of A or B. People who prefer a balanced game will find a game of A too simple and a game of C broken. Players who grew up with games of D dislike A, B, and C because it's not familiar to them. Finally, players who prefer A, B, or C will find D problematic if the default presentation of their chosen class does not correspond to their desired "fiatness".

So, the better question I think, instead of arguing where the slider should be, first it needs to be established whether the slider should be able to move at all and if so should they be independent (necessitating D) or move together (necessitating anything but D)?

 

[Bedrockgames]

How is, "I really liked the way some parts of this worked and the effects it had on the game; let's find another good way to do this" an invented problem.

It's no more an invented problem than starting with a goal of "Everything a Fighter can do should be at-will" or starting from the assumption that a feat-based Fighter is a good idea.

I'm not wedded to an AEDU framework. In fact, I don't think it belongs in Next; I already have an edition that explored that idea quite thoroughly. I'm looking for other ways to manage it that meet my own criteria, and so far most of what I've gotten is either, "Yo, dude, the PF fighter is bomb!" or "Let's nuke everyone's ability to determine the flow of battle."

-O

I think the core issue here is different people really want different things from the fighter and from the game at this point. The more we try to paint each other's preferences in unflattering lights (i.e. "boring", "unrealistic", "unfun", "outdated", "easy-mode", etc) or question the authenticity of their stance the less progress we make in the discussion. Wanting an AEDU framework, or wanting something that achieves many of the same goals is a perfectly acceptible point of view. By the same token, wanting the game to return to form and have wizards that are vancian and fighters that are like fighters in the first three editions, is also a perfectly acceptible point of view. The problem isn't that one stance is objectively superior to the other, it is that these two positions are largely incompatible. I genuinely want the game to go back to its 2E-3E state and work from there to make some marginal improvements (more than we saw in pathfinder, but nothing that radically alters the structure of the game for me). I never had a huge problem with fighters being boring or anything like that, but I would like to see tighter math around them, and a fine tuned set of maneuvers (perhaps based around the maneuvers in the 2E complete fighter but updated, refined and balanced).

For me, the fighter doesn't need special powers, he just needs to be the best at all the mundane things other people can try to do. A wizard can try to swing a sword, but shouldn't be as good at it as a fighter. A wizard can try to parry a blow, but should be awful at it compared to a fighter. I think the trick is to bake into the raw numbers something that sets the fighter apart and makes him the ideal choice in certain situations. But I don't want this to go in reverse because to me mundane and magic are fundamentally different. A fighter can't attempt a spell for example.

That is just what I would like to see. I understand that lots of folks really liked AEDU, and want to see how stuff like that can work in the game. nothing wrong with that at all, it just isn't the kind of D&D I have much interest in playing. I am certainly not a grognard. I play all kinds of modern games. But with D&D, I found I enjoyed myself playing them right up to edition 4. My reaction, at so many different points trying to read through and play 4E was just dissapointment pretty consistently. Something about that edition just sucked the fun out for me personally. So I would really like them to get as far away from that as possible. And I suspect people who were fond of AEDU feel quite the opposite of how feel. So that seems to be the heart of the problem here when you start trying to address fighters for an edtiion that is meant to unite all players. I am not saying this to stir up more debate on these issues, just lay out my preferences and feelings for what what I am about to suggest.

It is interesting to me that, in many ways, the edition wars have gotten worse again since the announcement of 5E. People are clearly passionate and clearly their points of view do not align, particularly around fighters and wizards. I don't know about anyone else, but I find these sorts of discussions exhausting at this point.

The more I think about it. The more I feel having two or even three editions at once ( a bit like we had in the 80s and early 90s) would possibly be the way for them to go. I think the preferences are so all over the map, that this core game is going to be too compromised for all of our sakes. Better to focus a bit, since the divide is there and isn't going away. Break D&D players into two or three groups and give them what they want.

 

[Obryn]

Here's a quick, back-of-the-envelope, largely undeveloped idea to give Fighters a better level of control or fiat without AEDU, necessary hit/damage penalties, or (hopefully) repetitiveness.

It involves a level of metagame mechanics, and if you absolutely must never see a metagame mechanic, this will do no better for you. But it may address some other "believability" issues. There are no Daily powers at all, and it's an overall lower level of fiat due to some randomness.

It's not entirely dissimilar to the Bo9S Crusader, but it's different enough in a few ways that I can't just use it as shorthand.

(1) For at-will stuff, like I said before, I don't see much daylight between feats, stances, and at-will exploits. Regardless, I think we can agree that the effects should be somewhat limited, but that you can get better at them through "X" whatever X might be.

(2) Here's where it might be a dealbreaker for some - cards. Non-collectible, duh. The idea of using cards in some capacity in RPGs is hardly new, and I'm using them here. One of the issues [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] brought up is, "every single combat things line up for X to happen." Well, this avoids it. You get a deck of ... 10? 20? I dunno.

(2a) The cards can be based on something; I think basing them on combat styles or weapon groups is fair, but they could also be assembled in some way by the player. At the start of a fight, the Fighter draws a few, probably one at first but more at higher levels.

(2b) The cards have maneuvers, effects, whatever. They might also have prerequisites to set up mini-goals in combat. Some might get better at higher levels, too.

So ... it's kind of like encounter-based powers, but with a few differences.

First, the inherent randomness makes for an easier-to-explain connection between the narrative and the metagame, so it's less obvious to the characters in the game-world (assuming here this matters) that they are doing the same tricks every fight. The Fighter stays competent and capable. Resources are limited because the Fighter can't re-use their effects. So some examples might be...

BLINDING BLOW: Use this before making an attack. If it hits, the attack blinds the enemy for (1dX rounds/save-ends/whatever). Special: If the enemy is somehow protected from getting blinded (due to head protection, being 10' or more taller than the Fighter, etc.) the attack takes a -2 penalty.

SHOVE: After a successful attack, you can use this effect to push a target up to 1 size category larger than you back 5' and knock them prone. If you are using a shield, the enemy takes 1d10 additional damage.

GUARDIAN: Requirement: You must have hit the enemy in melee last round and this round. Effect: If the enemy moves away from you or attacks any of your allies, you can make an immediate opportunity attack against them. If it hits, this attack disrupts and cancels their action. This lasts until you fail to successfully hit them in combat.

(just examples)

-O

 

[Abraxas]

(1) For at-will stuff, like I said before, I don't see much daylight between feats, stances, and at-will exploits. Regardless, I think we can agree that the effects should be somewhat limited, but that you can get better at them through "X" whatever X might be.

(2) Here's where it might be a dealbreaker for some - cards. Non-collectible, duh. The idea of using cards in some capacity in RPGs is hardly new, and I'm using them here. One of the issues [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] brought up is, "every single combat things line up for X to happen." Well, this avoids it. You get a deck of ... 10? 20? I dunno.

(2a) The cards can be based on something; I think basing them on combat styles or weapon groups is fair, but they could also be assembled in some way by the player. At the start of a fight, the Fighter draws a few, probably one at first but more at higher levels.

(2b) The cards have maneuvers, effects, whatever. They might also have prerequisites to set up mini-goals in combat. Some might get better at higher levels, too.

So ... it's kind of like encounter-based powers, but with a few differences.

First, the inherent randomness makes for an easier-to-explain connection between the narrative and the metagame, so it's less obvious to the characters in the game-world (assuming here this matters) that they are doing the same tricks every fight. The Fighter stays competent and capable. Resources are limited because the Fighter can't re-use their effects. So some examples might be...

I trimmed other parts of your post to focus on the idea suggested above.

First, would you play a spellcaster with the same mechanics as you listed?
Second, I don't think the randomness makes it any easier to explain the narrative & metagame connection. In a number of instances it might even be a worse problem.
Third, for a fighter type, the Warblade's maneuver preparation & recovery mechanics would make more sense IMO.

 

[Remathilis]

Here's a quick, back-of-the-envelope, largely undeveloped idea to give Fighters a better level of control or fiat without AEDU, necessary hit/damage penalties, or (hopefully) repetitiveness.

Lets try this.

Fighters begin with a pool of "power points" (I don't care if they're called fate, stamina, badassdom, or mettle). The pool starts small (3-5 points) and grows with level. The points are spent on maneuvers. At first, he is limited to simple maneuvers, but as he gains level, he can choose more powers and more powerful ones. Each use drains one or more points from the pool. The points are restored during an extended rest, though perhaps with feats he could regain some with short rests.

Powers are arranged thus:
Stances (0): Cost no points. Doable at will. Things like Power attack or Combat expertise fall in here.
Simple (1): Powers like trip, slow, or pushing 1 square.
Intermediate (3): More complicated abilities like blind, deafen, or stun, along with adding an additional attack.
Complex (5): Difficult maneuvers that may add paralyzation, long distance pushes, multiple attacks, or multiple status ailments.
Heroic (7+): Very difficult maneuvers (death attacks, thowing melee weapons, or things that border on magical).

A PC can use a technique he doesn't know, but at double the cost in power points.

Most attacks are simply riders to an attack (save vs. Con or blinded) though some could be be trained techniques (Robliar's Gambit or Whirlwind attack).

Something like that work?

 

[Obryn]

I trimmed other parts of your post to focus on the idea suggested above.

First, would you play a spellcaster with the same mechanics as you listed?
Second, I don't think the randomness makes it any easier to explain the narrative & metagame connection. In a number of instances it might even be a worse problem.
Third, for a fighter type, the Warblade's maneuver preparation & recovery mechanics would make more sense IMO.

For (1) Yep, sure? The idea is that this can work alongside a spellcaster who's toned down a bit from 3.5. The idea is not to make Fighters better than casters; the idea is to make them not Tier 5 or 6.
(2) The randomness is to address Remathilis's point about the same flow of combat every encounter. More or less - it's unpredictable what situations or opportunities will arise in any given fight.
(3) Honestly, I think anything from Bo9S is a fine model; all three of the classes are pretty great.

Lets try this.

Fighters begin with a pool of "power points" (I don't care if they're called fate, stamina, badassdom, or mettle). The pool starts small (3-5 points) and grows with level. The points are spent on maneuvers. At first, he is limited to simple maneuvers, but as he gains level, he can choose more powers and more powerful ones. Each use drains one or more points from the pool. The points are restored during an extended rest, though perhaps with feats he could regain some with short rests.

I like "Badassdom Points" for the record.

But yes - much like with my own suggestion the devil's in the details, but that's another perfectly good basis for a resource system.

-O