D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[ForeverSlayer]

I think I know what the OP is trying to say but it's already been done with 4th edition.

I believe what the OP wants is to look at the fighter's abilities and make the Wizard in line with those abilities. Essentially, make the fighter the focal point and don't allow the Wizard's abilities to go above those.

 

[Obryn]

This is where the argument falls apart for me.

Are you saying the fighter should ALSO be able to cast an area burst effect for Xd6 fire damage?

If the wizard has teleknesis should they be the only one in the party or should everyone have the power to levitate objects from across the room without strings with the power of their mind?

Or, equally bad in my opinion, are you talking about effects that are the same as these effects so that everyone can move objects - the wizard with teleknesis and the fighter with a lasso or rope?
If it is this final case then I definitely disagree, as I don't see those skills as needing to be transferred. If a fighter wants to pick up charm person then they should take levels in wizard - as far as I'm concerned.

Nope - I am not saying a Fighter should throw fireballs.

I am saying there should be resources available to the Fighter to create special effects with real game impacts which are similar in scope and power but not identical.

[MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] You're asking for Called Shots to be re-implemented again, effectively making every turn "I target the head." This doesn't increase options, it effectively reduces them.
You may ask "How?"

Fighter A has five options available to him. Attack (deal damage), Trip (deal damage, make opponent prone), Disarm (remove opponent's weapon), Grapple (make opponent unable to act), or target the head (blind, deafen, disorient, and kill opponent).

Which does he do every round?

You're assuming this is all at-will. I am not.
[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] - that's another good half-measure. It's an improvement over base 3.5 but even with the Greater version, behind 3 feats, at best you're trading standard actions with one opponent - there's no damage and a substantial chance of failure. I'm looking for more.

-O

 

[Obryn]

The title of the thread kind of suggests it.

Now it sounds to me like you're saying that the rules should describe nonmagical actions (specifically combat actions) and their effects in more detail, such that rather than simply attacking, a character could call shots or dictate things like the speed and forcefulness of attacks, more detailed feinting and taunting, and so on.

As [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] points out, however, what you're talking about at that point is maneuvers and stunts which are not class abilities (and have to some extent been implemented successfully in PF; we've yet to see much of this in the 5e drafts). While they benefit the fighter, they are not specific to one class.

I am not sure why they should not be class abilities. A fighter is more than just a chap with a sword.

I think I know what the OP is trying to say but it's already been done with 4th edition.

I believe what the OP wants is to look at the fighter's abilities and make the Wizard in line with those abilities. Essentially, make the fighter the focal point and don't allow the Wizard's abilities to go above those.

Or make a common baseline shared by all classes? Not necessarily in structure or in details, but in efficacy.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

I am not sure why they should not be class abilities. A fighter is more than just a chap with a sword.

So what happens if a fighter who didn't select the "stick in the eye" maneuver tries to blind someone?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Or make a common baseline shared by all classes? Not necessarily in structure or in details, but in efficacy.

-O

So I was right.

4th edition already did this and a lot of people weren't happy with it. Now if they were then they would just stick to playing that edition.

 

[Obryn]

So what happens if a fighter who didn't select the "stick in the eye" maneuver tries to blind someone?

Dunno! What happens when the Wizard doesn't have that spell ready?

Same answer for both - when your fiat runs out, it's back to asking permission through improvisation.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

@Remathilis - that's another good half-measure. It's an improvement over base 3.5 but even with the Greater version, behind 3 feats, at best you're trading standard actions with one opponent - there's no damage and a substantial chance of failure. I'm looking for more.

So you want an ability to once per day/encounter blind a foe, no save, along with his normal complement of attacks? And you don't want to pay for it with feats either?

There's an edition of D&D that already does that. It sold miserably. If you have fun with it, bonus for you. The last thing WotC needs to to do is sell us ADEU powers with a different name.

 

[Obryn]

So I was right.

4th edition already did this and a lot of people weren't happy with it. Now if they were then they would just stick to playing that edition.

There's more than one way to accomplish this, you know. I don't need a rewrite of 4e. I do however want a well-designed system where the "mundane" classes aren't left behind.

-O

 

[timASW]

Sure! But the Charm spell places a limit on the DM's roleplaying. There's a version of it in every edition of D&D, up to and including 4e ("Instant Friends" from HotFL). The DM can't decide, "Yeah, that barkeep hates you anyway" if he's running the game by the rules. That's the player fiat in question.
-O

Absolutely nothing about charm person limits the DM roleplaying choices in any meaningful way. All that it says is that the target treats you like a friend.

Its very simple to say this person is just still chincy with his friends. People tell their friends NO all the time, even over very minor, completely reasonable things.

Your other example "color spray" doesnt control the narrative anymore then some other class throwing a tanglefoot bag at a target and saying you want them to not move anymore. Or throwing oil on them and saying you want them to be on fire now.

Your vastly, vastly, over stating the ability of casters to control the game.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

There's more than one way to accomplish this, you know. I don't need a rewrite of 4e. I do however want a well-designed system where the "mundane" classes aren't left behind.

-O

I think the problem is you need to get the myth about mundane classes being left behind out of your head.