D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Ahnehnois]

If Fate Points are tolerable in the hands of all players, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be tolerable in the hands of one player.

Well for one thing, if you use Fate Points or their ilk, you're going off the reservation as far as D&D is concerned. They're completely inappropriate for many people's style of D&D. If you're going to use them, they're for all players, but they certainly aren't for every campaign (and thus baking them into the core rules is a problem)

And if Fate Points are tolerable in the hands of one player, then why wouldn't some sort of merger between Fate Points and PC resources be tolerable?

Those are completely separate issues. in the hands of one player, they're fine. In the hands of one character, they break the fourth wall.

One player is playing a wizard, but is attacking in melee for some reason. He thinks to himself "gee, I really need this next attack to hit". So, remembering that he prepared a true strike spell this morning, he casts it. The attack hits. The player shares the character's relief.

Another player is playing a monk (as described above). He thinks to himself "gee, I really need this next attack to hit". So he...does what? Uses a power? What does that mean to the character? What does the character experience as this is happening? What does the character know about his access to this power (or lack thereof, now that he's used it)? Are you saying you don't see where this is nonsensical?

My point is that, if Fate Points are tolerable, than so should martial encounter and daily powers. They are no different.

They're very different. One represents the hand of god, the will of the universe, the need to have a fun game, or some other intangible concept. The other represents the learning and execution of physical skills that are absolutely real in the game world.

***

The appropriate use of such a metagame resource is when a player wants his attack to hit, and spends his fate points or whatever, and something happens that is clearly not understood or controlled by the character that makes the attack hit. The player is enjoying his success, but the character has no idea what happened. He's just glad to still be alive. That's pretty much what "metagame" means.

And using them to achieve parity of mechanical effectiveness between classes is no big deal, once the tolerability of Fate Points or similar metagame devices is permitted.

Actually, even in this case, it is a big deal. Because it doesn't balance the world. Are we to assume that every character in the world, from heroes to commoners, has sufficient metagame benefits to make them "balanced"? If not, one still needs to explain the role of powerful magic in the world, i.e. why wizards don't rule everything. If so, my head just exploded.

***

I guess what I still haven't seen addressed is that if balance between classes is such a concern, what's wrong with fixing it in the context of the world? Why not limit spell access and use in some way? Why not make it so Haste ages you every time you use it or give wizards only a couple of spell slots a day? D&D's spellcasters are indeed supremely capable. Fixing magic is much easier than giving fighters mulligans and favors. Why is this angle ignored?

If anything, all this unrestricted spell access and use is a step in the wrong direction. Why do we need everyone to have at-will spells?

 

[Remathilis]

Why are they invisible? If they lead to increased hits/crits, then if the PCs were doing a statistical tally they would be visible over the medium-to-long run.

But we assume that no such tally is being undertaken. Just as we assume the fighter is not conducting controlled experiments to see how often s/he can leap over a 100' cliff and survive.

Because the rules effect the RESOLUTION of the action, not the action itself. A fighter could whack at goblins all day and have the same chance of hitting everyone (based on the d20 roll) and all an action point does is improve those odds. I got no problem with that.

The daily power won't be used every day, for reasons such as: not every day has a fight on it; not every daily power is used every day. And in any event, who is keeping the tally?

You seriously clear out every dungeon in a single day? You've never rested and went back? Never had a multiday journey with random encounters? Really?

I mean, I heard some bad things about 4e adventure design, but REALLY?

You are choosing, here, to make the metagame visible within the ingame fiction. If you narrate your game so as to make the metagame overt within the fiction in this way, of course it will look stupid. That is not any sort of peculiarity of 4e, and of course is the whole premise for Order of the Stick (which is based on 3E, not 4e).

Hence, most RPGers - at least, the ones I know - choose not to make the metagame overt within the fiction in this way. In my game, at least, while the players call for one another to make skill checks, the PCs don't - they just talk about doing things. While a player might say "I can't go in, I've only got 6 hp left" the PC doesn't talk about his/her hit points (or level, or attack bonus, or AC, or XP to next level, or any of the other metagame elements).

I want an in-game reason why that fighter can staggering blow only once per day. I get a bunch of half-answers (the stars aligned, the orc just happened to drop his guard, the fighter got too tired to do it again, etc). 4e can't give me that answer and that drags me out of the game because I can see the artificiality of it again. I see the chess pieces on the board and the arbitrary decisions made in the name of balance. Magic at least has a consistent answer; magic fires and then forgets. Martial powers has no inherent consistent answer and it ruins my immersion.

The PCs don't have to explain anything. The participants in the game - players and GM - have to narrate some fiction. Just as, in AD&D, some ficiton has to be narrated to explain why the wizard can't learn Passwall when the "learn spells" roll is failed. That's pretty much the essence of an RPG - narrating fiction that accommodates the outcomes generated by the mechanics. 4e just has a greater looseness of fit in this respect then a more simulationist ruleset (as @Manbearcat noted upthread).

That's the problem; 4e reminds me at every pass that I'm playing a game and not interacting with the story. It tells me "these guys are minions, so they use different rules. Just go with it." It tells me "You have to have a healing surge to drink a potion. Just go with it." It tells me "Fighters can summon enemies over for a good whacking and they obey because they're weak-willed. Just go with it." Its constantly reminding me of its metagame contructions, and that drags me out from being Remathilis the elven rogue and replaces me into Ian, player of an elf rogue named Remathilis.

If Fate Points are tolerable in the hands of all players, then I don't understand why they wouldn't be tolerable in the hands of one player. And if Fate Points are tolerable in the hands of one player, then why wouldn't some sort of merger between Fate Points and PC resources be tolerable?

A concrete example might be the 3E monk - we balance the monk by giving the player of the monk a 1x/day Fate Point (turn a miss into a hit, or a hit into a crit), and then attach it to Flurry of Blows - when flurrying, 1x/day the player of the monk may turn a miss into a hit, or a hit into a crit.

If Fate Points are tolerable at all, I don't see how that particular ability is not tolerable. And what that ability is, in effect, is a 4e-style daily power. The player choosing to use that power rather than some other one is no different, as a play experience, from a player choosing to use a Fate Point at this particular juncture.

Now if Fate Points are not tolerable at all, because of their metagame character, fine. I've played RPGs that eschew metagame altogether (classic Rolemaster or Runequest) and am familiar with the aesthetic. My point is that, if Fate Points are tolerable, than so should martial encounter and daily powers. They are no different. And using them to achieve parity of mechanical effectiveness between classes is no big deal, once the tolerability of Fate Points or similar metagame devices is permitted.

See above. Fate/Luck/Skill/Deific Mojo/Badassdom points change the dice rolls, which is already a metagame contruction which is resolving a major area of concern: Can I do X? We accept some level of meta rules are needed to actually play the game, which is why its impossible to assign yourself ability scores. But these are the invisible rules. A fighter when he swings his sword isn't taking into account his level, strength, magical plus, and feats, but we (as players) do. When a fighter has to decide "Do I use my Sweeping Strike now or save it?" He's making a choice that should reflect his own thinking.

In the end, you can argue why metagame like level, hp, AC, alignment, saves, ability scores, and thac0 are acceptable but martial dailies, action points, forced movement and healing surges are not. I respond that its a spectrum that has always swung back and forth (a quick search of this site will yield dozens of examples of people arguing against alignment or hit points, even XP and classes). There is no answer for this. My threshold is different than yours. (And not completely as black/white as this debate appears, I LIKE healing HD and Expertise Dice despite their meta concepts and detest "realistic" critical hit charts). I find martial dailies poorly executed and narrative breaking. I hope they stay gone. But I'm not against some form of system that merges "at will" powers with maneuvers or exploits.

 

[Obryn]

This is where we're going to agree to disagree. D&D combat is already highly abstract, so I don't need every feint, parry or thrust accounted for, but I generally assume that any decision a PC can take is one the character would. A wizard cast's sleep because he knows he has sleep memorized. A fighter uses power attack because he knows how to use that fighting technique. There is room for metagame element (I've mentioned Action Points, which can represent all sorts of fiat, luck, or the Will of the Gods if you want it to) but I like them off-camera, influencing things that could be possible without them. Metagame elements should never grant a PC an action he could not do without them.

But if it works for you, great. It doesn't for me. My hope is Next avoids or minimizes them.

I'm fine agreeing to disagree - but my own hope is that they're a pretty major element in Next. (And you'd even mentioned trading expertise dice for effects, which is also a pretty big metagame manipulation.)

In my mind, there's not much daylight between action points, Bo9S maneuvers, spells, Barbarian Rages, Rogue Tricks like the Defensive Roll, or martial powers for Warlords and Fighters. (And I'm likewise great with games like FATE and Savage Worlds, both of which have a robust metagame, though the former admittedly more than the latter. Oh, and the FATE Core Kickstarter looks absolutely stellar.) Metagame mechanics don't take me out of the character at all; I view them as positively vital to making sure the characters can do all the cool stuff we imagine them doing - both reliably and capably.

I just view them like I view the rest of 4e - cutting through the obfuscation and complexity, while getting straight to the effects or results.

As I've said, I'm willing to give ground for some of the more obviously narrative effects like CaGI and Compel the Craven in the name of compromise. I'm not willing to give up some level of martial fiat for potent special effects.

-O

 

[Obryn]

Actually, even in this case, it is a big deal. Because it doesn't balance the world. Are we to assume that every character in the world, from heroes to commoners, has sufficient metagame benefits to make them "balanced"? If not, one still needs to explain the role of powerful magic in the world, i.e. why wizards don't rule everything. If so, my head just exploded.

An illustration of one of the fundamental disconnects: From my perspective, who cares about everyone else in the world? There's no reason whatsoever, in my mind, for this kind of symmetry.

I guess what I still haven't seen addressed is that if balance between classes is such a concern, what's wrong with fixing it in the context of the world? Why not limit spell access and use in some way? Why not make it so Haste ages you every time you use it or give wizards only a couple of spell slots a day? D&D's spellcasters are indeed supremely capable. Fixing magic is much easier than giving fighters mulligans and favors. Why is this angle ignored?

If anything, all this unrestricted spell access and use is a step in the wrong direction. Why do we need everyone to have at-will spells?

Well, mostly because I think this way's more fun. The goal isn't just "more balanced." The goal is, "more balanced and more fun."

Why have At-Will spells? Because if I'm playing a Wizard, it's more fun to plink away with spells all day long and have continued effects on the game than to be a Wizard for a handful of rounds and then be a guy with a crossbow/darts/dagger/staff/etc. the rest of the day.

If you're taking away this level of fiat from everyone, you're going much further away from player agency and I'd rather not do that in D&D Next.

-O

 

[JamesonCourage]

Its a match for the "failed lock pick, can't attempt again until I put a Skill rank into Pick Locks" for Rogues in 3.x.

I'm kinda curious about this. You said 3.X, but I don't see anywhere in 3.5 where it's stated. I didn't see it in Rogue, Open Lock, or Thieves Tools. I'm not saying you're lying (I do not think you are), and I'm not saying that you're wrong (I think you may be), I'm just curious if that was a hiccup I never saw. As always, play what you like

An illustration of one of the fundamental disconnects: From my perspective, who cares about everyone else in the world? There's no reason whatsoever, in my mind, for this kind of symmetry.

I know you're asking "who cares" rhetorically, so that you can go on to explain your opinion. And that's cool, because that's what the thread's about. But yeah, I just wanted to say that I care about it. And that's my opinion

Well, mostly because I think this way's more fun.

Good reason! I'm usually the opposite in fantasy games, but I'm quite okay with it when I play something like a superhero genre. Then again, I tend to like my fantasy games gritty, so maybe that's part of it, too. Anyways, "Fun" is a great reason for pimping your view. As always, play what you like

 

[Obryn]

I know you're asking "who cares" rhetorically, so that you can go on to explain your opinion. And that's cool, because that's what the thread's about. But yeah, I just wanted to say that I care about it. And that's my opinion

Good reason! I'm usually the opposite in fantasy games, but I'm quite okay with it when I play something like a superhero genre. Then again, I tend to like my fantasy games gritty, so maybe that's part of it, too. Anyways, "Fun" is a great reason for pimping your view. As always, play what you like

Not even rhetorically - like I said, it's my own perspective.

I'm personally not a big superhero guy, but I do prefer competent, capable heroes for my D&D games. If I want mud-grabbers (and sometimes I do!) I like WFRP 2e usually. Even in AD&D, I tend to veer towards a heroic baseline.

-O

 

[Obryn]

Double post... Again...

 

[Ahnehnois]

An illustration of one of the fundamental disconnects: From my perspective, who cares about everyone else in the world? There's no reason whatsoever, in my mind, for this kind of symmetry.

Indeed, and I get that.

However, besides my own interest in the world outside of the player characters' immediate surroundings, I also think it's worth trying to look at styles outside of one's own paradigm of gaming. I think considering the broader implications of the rules beyond a specific standardized setting is worthwhile for that reason as well.

 

[Obryn]

Indeed, and I get that.

However, besides my own interest in the world outside of the player characters' immediate surroundings, I also think it's worth trying to look at styles outside of one's own paradigm of gaming. I think considering the broader implications of the rules beyond a specific standardized setting is worthwhile for that reason as well.

Yep; specifically I think it's important to look at completely different games and see what's being developed outside the cozy smugness of D&D and it's close d20 relatives.

To that point, I think it's okay to focus on a specific genre and even setting... I love close ties between system and setting. Games like Earthdawn are fascinating because of their setting. More generic games are good, too, mind you. Savage Worlds is an incredibly versatile system that made me reconsider universal systems as a whole.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

That is brilliant! Unfortunately, I cannot xp. I never even thought of that one (why I'm not sure) during these conversations. Another pure metagame construct embedded in AD&D but from the Wizards side of the ruleset. Its a match for the "failed lock pick, can't attempt again until I put a Skill rank into Pick Locks" for Rogues in 3.x.

Not that it changes your opinion, but open lock can be repeatedly used. Indeed, that's how a rogue can take 20 on it. Its spellcraft checks to learn new spells you're thinking of (ironically), which is to mimic "learning more about magic" before you can understand the spell (kinda like learning more math to understand a calculus problem).

You might be remembering pre-d20 thieves though, who indeed could only use open lock on a lock once per level (unless he put more % points in that skill).