D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Argyle King]

The topic over in the Doing It Wrong post has mutated, so I've started this new one to continue the conversation.

The mutant topic is Fighters. What has been done right about them in the past? What has been done wrong? How can they be fixed in Next?

I'll start - For me to even look its way, the Next Fighter must have "fiat" capabilities. What I mean by this is, consider the Wizard.

The Wizard casts Charm Person and imposes his will upon the situation; the DM must make a save and that's it.

The Wizard casts Magic Missile. The target takes damage, barring immunities. That's it.

For me, the Fighter must have a similar degree of ability to make declarations like this. They should not be playing "mother may I" while the Wizard is bending reality over their knee.

-O

Why is the fighter viewed as the problem instead of looking at the wizard?

This is a terrible example of the point I think you're trying to make. Sure the wizard casts charm person and the DM rolls a save. And then the player tries to get the charmed character in a particular way, and the DM decides how well it actually works.

By "mother may I", I assume you mean "playing a game with a DM", which D&D pretty definitively is. I think if anything you've got it backwards; the ability of a spellcaster to dictate play should be reduced by making spells more difficult to cast, unpredictable in effect, and more limited in scope.

I agree with the part I bolded. Virtually every D&D book in virtually every edition talks about how difficult it is to be a wizard. It takes years of laborious study to become an expert. It takes hard work, precise gestures, and a strong will to impose one's skill at thaumatology onto the outside world. So, why not have the way the game works do a better job of supporting what the game's story says is going on?

 

[pemerton]

Fighters and social conflict resolution

A fighter pulls out his sword and attacks the corrupt barkeep. He's imposed his will on the situation (namely, he's done with negotiations). Its not much different than a wizard using charm person or a rogue using Intimidate, except for the mechanical means of doing so (attack roll, saving throw, skill check) and the end result (a cowering, charmed, or dead barkeep).

Now, if your talking that the fighter should have some automatic (or near automatic) way of making the barkeep his friend, we're going to differ a bit. There doesn't need to be a "charm person" ability for fighters. In the above example, the fighter could use skills (not so much in 3.5, but by Next a charisma opposed roll is not out of the realm of possible) just as the rogue can.

Theoretically...couldn't the same thing be accomplished with the use of Diplomacy or Intimidate?

What does it take, in combat, to cow a barkeep?

And what is the DC to make one your "trusted friend" who will "treat you kindly" and "perceive your words and actions in the most favourable way" (this is the wording for Charm Person + FAQ/errata, as found on the PF SRD here)?

The only editions of D&D to have action resolution mechanics that allow the imposition of this sort of outcome on a situation via non-magical means are 3E (via it's rightly criticised Diplomacy rules) and 4e (via its skill challenge mechanics). The lack of ability of the players of non-magical PCs to impose finality on situations other than by killing all the NPCs present is part of what makes combat very much the first among equals of the "three pillars".

Fighters and defending
This is a carryover from the other thread.

A fighter stands between the foe and a squishie. The foe uses his move to get to squishie, but is stopped by the fighter's Stand Still (during the foe's turn). Now on the fighter's turn, he has a foe within 5' of him. Hello Full-attack! If the foe is still standing, if he tries to move away; he get's stand-stilled again. If he 5' steps, then Step Up give the fighter the ability to keep locked down and in full-attack range.

I don't understand how this protects an ally who is immediately behind the fighter - because a 5' step around the fighter won't provoke an OA, I don't think, and so won't trigger Stand Still.

I also don't understand how this will protect a rogue who is flanking with the fighter. Or, in a situation in which two fighters a holding the line side-by-side against two enemies, I don't see how this discourages "focus-fire" by those two enemies on one of the fighters. Whereas in 4e the discouragement is very clear - ignoring the fighter who has marked you gives you penalties to attack and causes you to suffer extra damage.

 

[Remathilis]

Fighters and social conflict resolution

What does it take, in combat, to cow a barkeep?

And what is the DC to make one your "trusted friend" who will "treat you kindly" and "perceive your words and actions in the most favourable way" (this is the wording for Charm Person + FAQ/errata, as found on the PF SRD here)?

The only editions of D&D to have action resolution mechanics that allow the imposition of this sort of outcome on a situation via non-magical means are 3E (via it's rightly criticised Diplomacy rules) and 4e (via its skill challenge mechanics). The lack of ability of the players of non-magical PCs to impose finality on situations other than by killing all the NPCs present is part of what makes combat very much the first among equals of the "three pillars".

Well, back in the day, we used this thing called "role-playing" where the player talked "in character" and tried to convince the DM (also playing in character) of his position. If the DM wanted to take it to dice, he rolled a NPC reaction roll (2d10+charisma modifier vs the chart in the DMG and on every DM screen) to determine the barkeep's reaction. Alternately, the PC could use nonweapon proficiencies (such as etiquette, diplomacy, fast talking, etc) to try to convince barkeep as well.

Fighters and defending
This is a carryover from the other thread.
I don't understand how this protects an ally who is immediately behind the fighter - because a 5' step around the fighter won't provoke an OA, I don't think, and so won't trigger Stand Still.

I also don't understand how this will protect a rogue who is flanking with the fighter. Or, in a situation in which two fighters a holding the line side-by-side against two enemies, I don't see how this discourages "focus-fire" by those two enemies on one of the fighters. Whereas in 4e the discouragement is very clear - ignoring the fighter who has marked you gives you penalties to attack and causes you to suffer extra damage.

No, a 5 foot step doesn't trigger Stand Still, but it DOES trigger Step Up (which allow you to follow a foe who makes a 5' step as an immediate action. So 5' stepping doesn't help (aside from shifting everyone 1 step over) and more movement retriggers Stand Still. Seriously, its brilliant.

As for the rogue, he's a damn fool if he starts any round in melee range. Rogues should be using tumble/acrobatics, spring attack, mobility, and hide checks to be dodging in and out of combat. Standing there trading full-attacks with a monster might maximize SA dice, but it should put the rogue in serious threat.

The fighter's job is not to control agro. Its to keep a foe from getting close to squishier targets.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

As for the rogue, he's a damn fool if he starts any round in melee range. Rogues should be using tumble/acrobatics, spring attack, mobility, and hide checks to be dodging in and out of combat. Standing there trading full-attacks with a monster might maximize SA dice, but it should put the rogue in serious threat.

The fighter's job is not to control agro. Its to keep a foe from getting close to squishier targets.

Agreed! The rogue has never been a tank type of class. It is a hit and run type of class that get's in that one big damage dealer while the monster is distracted.

 

[timASW]

Part of the problem here is expectations.

4e people are saying "my defender is better then yoru defender so its a better fighter"

PF people are saying "no mine's just as good or better of a defender so its a better fighter"

What is perhaps being lost is how many of us may not want our fighter to be a "defender" and to be forced into that role. Perhaps we want our fighter to be the best at 1 on 1 killing things, like you would expect someone who has spent their entire lives focusing on their skill with weapons to be.

And for those of us who want that the 4e fighter is worse then useless. While the PF fighter is still pretty damn good. And THATS why the PF fighter is better all around.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Part of the problem here is expectations.

4e people are saying "my defender is better then yoru defender so its a better fighter"

PF people are saying "no mine's just as good or better of a defender so its a better fighter"

What is perhaps being lost is how many of us may not want our fighter to be a "defender" and to be forced into that role. Perhaps we want our fighter to be the best at 1 on 1 killing things, like you would expect someone who has spent their entire lives focusing on their skill with weapons to be.

And for those of us who want that the 4e fighter is worse then useless. While the PF fighter is still pretty damn good. And THATS why the PF fighter is better all around.

The reason I say the Pathfinder Fighter is more versatile is because he can be a defender, a two weapon fighter, an archer, a scout, a two hander, a duelist, a polearm master, a trip expert, a disarm expert, a heavy armor expert, a light armor expert etc and he can do all of those things equally well or he can give up some of that specialization to be good at two or more of those things.

In 4th edition the versatility is not so great. Sure you can be an archer fighter in 4th edition but spamming a basic ranged attack doesn't really count.

 

[Argyle King]

Part of the problem here is expectations.

4e people are saying "my defender is better then yoru defender so its a better fighter"

PF people are saying "no mine's just as good or better of a defender so its a better fighter"

What is perhaps being lost is how many of us may not want our fighter to be a "defender" and to be forced into that role. Perhaps we want our fighter to be the best at 1 on 1 killing things, like you would expect someone who has spent their entire lives focusing on their skill with weapons to be.

And for those of us who want that the 4e fighter is worse then useless. While the PF fighter is still pretty damn good. And THATS why the PF fighter is better all around.

The reason I say the Pathfinder Fighter is more versatile is because he can be a defender, a two weapon fighter, an archer, a scout, a two hander, a duelist, a polearm master, a trip expert, a disarm expert, a heavy armor expert, a light armor expert etc and he can do all of those things equally well or he can give up some of that specialization to be good at two or more of those things.

In 4th edition the versatility is not so great. Sure you can be an archer fighter in 4th edition but spamming a basic ranged attack doesn't really count.

Maybe it's just me, but I find the 4E fighter to be pretty good. In comparison to the world around him, I'd say the 4E fighter stacks up much better (in both terms of defending and versatility) than the PF fighter stacks up to the PF world. I'd also argue that there are some very good ways (and reasons) to play a ranged 4E fighter, but my natural question to someone wanting to play a character dedicated to ranged combat in class based game would be "why aren't you choosing a class which is geared toward ranged combat?" If your answer is that you shouldn't be so bound to concept based on class, then my second question would be to ask why you're playing a class based rpg.

 

[Imaro]

Fighters and social conflict resolution

What does it take, in combat, to cow a barkeep?

And what is the DC to make one your "trusted friend" who will "treat you kindly" and "perceive your words and actions in the most favourable way" (this is the wording for Charm Person + FAQ/errata, as found on the PF SRD here)?

Seriously? Just read the description of diplomacy from the PF SRD you refrenced...

..."Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril." But at indifferent or better you can still make rolls to get an NPC to do things.

The only editions of D&D to have action resolution mechanics that allow the imposition of this sort of outcome on a situation via non-magical means are 3E (via it's rightly criticised Diplomacy rules) and 4e (via its skill challenge mechanics). The lack of ability of the players of non-magical PCs to impose finality on situations other than by killing all the NPCs present is part of what makes combat very much the first among equals of the "three pillars".

I don't think this is true... even RC D&D has a rudimentary skill system.

 

[Imaro]

Double Post

 

[Stalker0]

Just a note that in next's current iteration, charm person doesn't really affect the target directly at all. All it gives you is advantage on diplomacy checks. In other words, charm person doesn't do anything for you that your natural diplomacy couldn't already do, its just easier to do so.