D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Obryn]

One of the ways to modify 4E creatures was to add templates. There is a class template for the Fighter. It's not outside the realm of possibility for a monster to have some fighter powers, and for some monsters it is highly appropriate.

I'm really not even sure what I'm trying to say here... I guess that it doesn't take weird circumstances or 'bad' encounter design for a power like CAGI to be used on the party. One of the most common ways to modify monsters in 4E would allow for it to be possible.

To be clear - I thought the specific case of the evil altar was bad design. I likewise think it's bad design for a DM to unnecessarily push edge-case scenarios; it's the old, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this."/"Well then stop doing that!" idea. (Like, as I mentioned, using 29th level minions against a 1st level mage.)

My preference is to use magical or physical (rather than narrative) explanations if there's a compelling sort of effect on the PCs. I don't think it's inherently bad design to use narrative explanations - just that I think it's fair that players have a different expectation of agency for their PCs than I have for NPCs.

-O

 

[FireLance]

Here is my problem with many of the "martial dailies" concepts.

Fighter Bob has an ability, We'll call it Sweeping Blow. Basically, the fighter can attack in a burst multiple foes 1/encounter. (F3 btw).

So once per encounter, a fighter can hit everyone around him. Why? What does he do to strike everyone around him? How does it work? Where did he learn to do this? Why can he only do it once per encounter? Why can't he make the same sweeping attack again? What happens if he tries to do it again? Why do his foes "wise up" to THAT trick but can be Tide of Ironed all around the room if the fighter chooses? What happens if his other fighter buddy wants to try it too?

I tend to prefer the "fatigue" explanation: a martial encounter (or daily) power is tiring, and the PC can't pull it off again without taking a short rest (or an extended rest for a daily power).

The usual criticisms of this approach are:

1. For characters with more than one encounter (or daily) power, you can get the seemingly odd situation where the character has used power A and is "too tired" to use it again, but is still able to use power B.
2. For characters with both encounter and daily powers, you can also get the seemingly odd situation where the character has used all his encounter powers and is "too tired" to use them again, but is still able to use daily powers (which presumably require more effort).

One possible narrative work-around is to take the approach that each power tires a different muscle. After a sprint, for example, you might need to rest your leg muscles for a bit before you can sprint again, but you are still able to lift weights because your arm muscles aren't as tired out. However, some people still find it implausible that specific muscles can be tired out.

An alternative is to change the mechanics of martial powers so that a character can always choose to use a lower-level encounter power in place of a higher-level encounter power, and a lower-level daily power in place of a higher level daily power (so, in an encounter, a 5th-level fighter could use each of his class encounter powers once, or his 1st-level encounter power twice, and in a day, he could use both of his class daily powers once or his 1st-level daily power twice). There could also be a similar trade-off between daily powers and encounter powers. This flexibility could even be the hallmark of the martial classes.

 

[A'koss]

I'm really not a fan of daily powers for fighters either. I'd rather have that power toned down and then use a certain amount of martial dice that cannot be recovered without a short rest. That would at least suggest some level of fatigue when putting your all into a particular move.

 

[Li Shenron]

I tend to prefer the "fatigue" explanation: a martial encounter (or daily) power is tiring, and the PC can't pull it off again without taking a short rest (or an extended rest for a daily power).

The usual criticisms of this approach are: ...

Fatigue is about the only explanation I can accept for non-magic dailies without breaking my SoD too much, and I think that generally speaking you can avoid problem #1 if ALL those limited abilities are sharing the same "resource pool" like Rage for the 3ed Barbarian: you get N uses per day, and you can learn additional applications/abilities for that resource. If you separate the applications so that A works X/day and B works Y/day indipendently, then you run into the problem you mention.

Of course if you want both dailies and per-encounter in the same character, then it's more difficult, as your problem 2 describes.

 

[JamesonCourage]

While I don't feel the need to say so, I do want to clarify that I do generally prefer a lot of what you are saying. One of the reasons I started picking up games outside of D&D is because I wanted to play games in which a wider variety of solutions to problems were supported. Again, that's not to suggest combat is the only way to do things, but the current style of D&D tends to favor it a little more than other things. Ideally (and some of my posts elsewhere say) I prefer the game world to simply be the game world; interact with it however you choose to, but the same answer isn't going to solve every problem. In such a game, I am perfectly fine with different characters having different strengths and weaknesses.

I'm fine with different classes interacting with the three tiers differently, but I feel that requires the three tiers being given extra weight. Currently, I do not believe they weigh the same in the current edition, and what I've seen of the playtests for 5th Edition seems to indicate that won't be too drastically changed in the future.

Agreed on most (if not all) of this.

As for the bard? Well, I'm honestly someone who finds the 3rd Edition bard to be one of the most underrated classes, and I'd dare say that the bard certainly can be more useful than the wizard. I believe that's one class which Pathfinder actually hurt in comparison to what they did to other classes.

A lot of people seem to agree with you.

I agree the style of game and the style of campaign is going to change the weight of some of the options. In a 3rd Edition campaign with a lot of undead, the rogue tends to become a lot less useful while the cleric becomes nearly mandatory. That being said, if we're looking at the default state of the classes, I believe we also have to consider what the default state of the game tends to be. As I already said, I would prefer an approach similar to what you are proposing, but only if the tiers of the game are given a more equal treatment. For me -ideally, I'd prefer the three tiers not be broken into pieces and instead woven together in one grand experience. I'm not even quite sure that three pieces is enough for what my ideal preferences are.

That's kinda how I feel, too; are there only 3? I guess, in a general sense, we can divide it up however we choose. White Wolf has Social separate from Mental, though couldn't they fall under the same thing? Depends on how you want to divide things.

We'll see how they do, but yeah, they really need to expand in non-combat areas. Combat already doesn't look satisfying from an outside perspective, but non-combat is just undeveloped. I really hope they expand on it. As always, play what you like

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Agreed on most (if not all) of this.

A lot of people seem to agree with you.

That's kinda how I feel, too; are there only 3? I guess, in a general sense, we can divide it up however we choose. White Wolf has Social separate from Mental, though couldn't they fall under the same thing? Depends on how you want to divide things.

We'll see how they do, but yeah, they really need to expand in non-combat areas. Combat already doesn't look satisfying from an outside perspective, but non-combat is just undeveloped. I really hope they expand on it. As always, play what you like

The Pathfinder Bard is the best support class in the game and does its job amazingly well so I don't get where Pathfinder supposedly "hurt" the class. I can tell you that most people on the Paizo website don't agree with the poster so I'm not sure why you say "most" people agree.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I tend to believe that the best challenges are the ones where the PCs best toys don't always work right and they have to improvise.

I believe that the best challenges for PCs are ones that push them outside their comfort zone. But these challenges work for one reason and one reason alone. They are rare. The Beholder anti-magic ray rocks - it's an interesting and rare twist. The undead and construct immunity to sneak attack is obnoxious as hell because it makes one of the rogue's main abilities useless for most of the adventure. On the other hand the solution should never be "Bob can attack it; he has a +3 sword." This just means Bob is doing what Bob does.

And I think 4e got the immunities almost right. Making them mostly very rare - and far more interesting than immunities are consequences. For instance a Volcanic Dragon is not immune to fire - but hit it with fire and it produces even more thick black sulphurous fumes (I normally reskin it away from a dragon). And you can push, slide, or knock over an earthquake dragon (much better monster than an earth elemental so I use them as such). But knock over an earthquake dragon and the ground shakes, knocking over everyone standing too close. Far more interesting than a simple "It doesn't work".

Here is my problem with many of the "martial dailies" concepts.

Fighter Bob has an ability, We'll call it Sweeping Blow. Basically, the fighter can attack in a burst multiple foes 1/encounter. (F3 btw).

So once per encounter, a fighter can hit everyone around him. Why? What does he do to strike everyone around him? How does it work? Where did he learn to do this?

Same way Fighter Mack learned to Whirlwind Attack, attacking everyone around him. Are you going to argue against feats as well?

Why can he only do it once per encounter?

Because that's a much more realistic approximation than "He can do it every single time". It's not a perfect approximation, but what you do in combat is limited by the opportunities you can see (the Orient phase of the OODA loop). If you spend time woolgathering rather than simply using the opportunities you can see you take a sword in the gut.

Yes, there are better approximations you can come up with than AEDU. Giving each encounter power an activation number at the start of every turn (roll 1d6 per encounter power and you can use it on an roll of N+) the way 4e monsters do. The 3.5 Crusader recharge mechanic. But it's still massively better than "You can do all things all the time". But the principle that you only have the opportunity to use your more complex moves and stunts infrequently is a sound one - and at the level of detail D&D provides, this recharge cycle has to be arbitrary.

Why can't he make the same sweeping attack again? What happens if he tries to do it again?

If he tries it when the enemies haven't lined up properly it's effectively going to be a basic attack.

Why do his foes "wise up" to THAT trick but can be Tide of Ironed all around the room if the fighter chooses?

Because bullying someone backwards with your shield is a hell of a lot simpler than seeing an opportunity involving half a dozen enemies lining up just so.

What happens if his other fighter buddy wants to try it too?

What if Mack's fighter buddy Rachel wants to try a whirlwind attack? Same situation. Several solutions.

1. Se can practice until it's instinctive and something she sees rather than needs to think about. Thus retraining to get Sweeping Strike (or spending however many feats it is for Whirlwind Attack).
2. She can try to force it in the middle of combat - either being a second too slow or not having much chance to get the alignment properly. Either way she should be taking monstrous penalties.
3. She can realise that 2 is a bad idea of the sort that gets you stabbed and concentrate on perfecting her own technique and seeing the opportunities she's best at.

This isn't rocket science.

If Sweeping Strike is a twist of luck, than theoretically it can be done anytime the circumstances are right. If its training, then the fighter should be able to replicate it (since he can Tide of Iron or Spinning Sweep all day if he wants).

You are talking as if it's an either/or proposition. It isn't. It's a combination of a stroke of luck and the focussed training to take advantage of that luck in the split second you have to make a decision. To quote Louis Pasteur "Chance favours the prepared mind."

There is no reason a fighter should be able to pull off such a tactic once, even if the circumstances round to round didn't change (all foes still standing in their original place relevant to the fighter, it makes sense he could Sweeping Blow again the next round.

If all foes are standing in exactly their original place relevant to the fighter I want to know whether the fighter is fighting a row of statues or golems. You're telling me they either did not move an inch after a sweeping blow or stepped back to exactly where they were. The 3.X and 4e battlegrid represents five foot squares. Every monster facing our fighter could have moved three feet and there would be no change on the battlegrid.

Which means there's no reason to think that the situation will be exactly the same from round to round even if no one has moved out of their square - and given how chaotic melees are generally there's every reason to think it won't be.

Which brings me to my issue with metaplot cards being PC only. Dominate Spells don't just work on NPCs. Vorpral swords work just as well on fighters as they do on dragons. PCs have no immunity to these effects, why should they against a fighter's CAGI power?

They don't. Forced movement works on PCs just as it does on NPCs. CAGI is just a selective effect that only attacks enemies - if the fighter were to turn on the party he could CAGI them happily. Same way that Rain of Blood from the Invoker is divine magic that burns the Invoker's enemies and empowers their allies. If the Invoker switched sides it would stop burning monsters and start burning PCs.

Next question?

Let me set up a scenario: An adventuring group (a fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, and ranger) are wandering a dungeon and find an evil altar. The fighter, a brave dumbass, touches the altar and the DM tells him (via secret note) he is now a CE worshipper of Vecna and at the first opportunity, he must kill his allies. He's still a player at this moment, and he's not dominated (he has full control of his abilities) so the first thing he does is stand 10ft behind his friends and activates CAGI. What happens?

It works on the PCs, RAW. This is in the text of the power. Next question?

 

[pemerton]

Rules that describe the character and metagame rules are apples and oranges.

<snip>

In other words, trying to take an imbalance in the game world and fix it with counterbalancing metagame abilities is not a good idea. At best, you'll end up patching the problem, not really fixing it. You're also completely excluding anyone who looks at the game with the rules=physics of the game world approach even by making the attempt. Why not look at the imbalance in the context of the game world and fix it there? What's wrong with doing that?

There's nothing wrong with doing it the way you want, though that may exclude anyone who wants a game that involves a different game world yet maintains mechanical parity between PCs.

As for "patching the problem", why? There are whole games based on this sort of parity. 4e is just one example. A simple example: a wizard gets a 1x/day charm person ability; a rogue grants its player a 1x/day "NPC falls in love with me" ability. There's no obvious problem with that approach to ensuring parity of mechanical effectiveness.

If one player has a character with certain abilities, and that player can't show up for a session and hands his character sheet to another player, everything on that character sheet is transferred to the new player.

<snip>

By convention, a player adopts the role of one character and shares that character's resources, but they still fundamentally belong to the character.

I don't follow this. If I'm playing a game of chess, and then have to head off and hand my position over to an onlooker to take up, they inherit my position - it doesn't follow from that that the chess pieces, their position on the board etc are anything but a player resource.

Likewise if player X plays a PC in place of regular player Y, X inherits Y's position. It doesn't follow that the sheet is a list of PC resources. They are player resources - resources that belong to the player position - though some may also be PC resources (eg equipment lists; but typically not action points or fate points).

So once per encounter, a fighter can hit everyone around him. Why? What does he do to strike everyone around him? How does it work? Where did he learn to do this? Why can he only do it once per encounter?

It's metagame. The ingame narrative explanation - if it matters, which often it doesn't - can be narrated as appropriate.

If Sweeping Strike is a twist of luck, than theoretically it can be done anytime the circumstances are right. If its training, then the fighter should be able to replicate it (since he can Tide of Iron or Spinning Sweep all day if he wants).

Yes, it can be done more than once, but it isn't. That's the essence of metagame abilities. Here's an analogue: every successful hit could be a crit, but typically is not, because the required natural 20 (or whatever) is not rolled.

Suppose the game, instead of die rolls, allowed players to declare their d20 rolls, but forbade repeating a number until all 20 had been used: the number of crits would still be limited, even though in principle they are possible on every attack. It's just that the mechanics would allow a player to choose when his/her PC crits. That's how a metagame mechanic works. Martial encounter and daily powers are metagame powers of this sort.

Which brings me to my issue with metaplot cards being PC only.

<snip>

Let me set up a scenario: An adventuring group (a fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, and ranger) are wandering a dungeon and find an evil altar. The fighter, a brave dumbass, touches the altar and the DM tells him (via secret note) he is now a CE worshipper of Vecna and at the first opportunity, he must kill his allies. He's still a player at this moment, and he's not dominated (he has full control of his abilities) so the first thing he does is stand 10ft behind his friends and activates CAGI. What happens?

For the reasons [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] mentioned upthread, I would tend to be careful with this sort of situation in my game. But if it came up, I would narrate something appropriate (see [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post above, for instance.) The easiest narration for the situation you describe is that the possessed PC steps back, his allies step forward to see what is wrong, and he then cuts them down.

This particular situation really shouldn't be that contentious, because the players rarely narrate that sort of detail of their PC's behaviour. So the GM stipulating it in response to the player of the possessed PC declaring Come and Get It shouldn't be contradicting any player's narration of his/her PC's behaviour.

the moral of the story while the PCs might be the stars of the show, they still have to conform to the same "rules of the universe" as everyone else. And if the rule is going to break (such as PCs get resurrected when NPCs don't) then there needs to be a reason "in universe" why it works (PCs have destiny, etc).

Why is that the moral of the story? There are plenty of rulesets that differentiate PCs and NPCs - for instance, in Over The Edge players get a penalty to attack rolls if they don't narrate an interesting action for their PCs, whereas the GM has no such rule applied to his/her narration of NPC attacks. And in the typical D&D game a PC cannot start as a super-wealthy noble.

What harm are these rules and play approaches doing to the players of these games?

 

[pemerton]

What happens if his other fighter buddy wants to try it too?

Prompted by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION], I wanted to comment on this.

First, as Neonchamelon said, the question is parallel to asking about a 3E fighter who doesn't have the Whirlwind Attack feat.

But second, these abilities are all about action economy, and action economy is a metagame abstraction. Whirlwind Attack is just attacking lots of foes quickly. Other fighters can attack lots of foes too, they're just not quite as quick.

 

[S'mon]

I see Encounter and Daily martial powers as more about 'focusing your inner strength' (Ki) to do something special. In that way they are not much different from Arcane or Divine E & D powers. And AEDU works far more elegantly than an Iron Heroes style points system. It also maps reasonably to the real world; martial artists/fighters IRL don't constantly spam their most powerful attacks.

If another Fighter doesn't have the burst-1 power then he does not know the technique, so obviously cannot use it effectively.