D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[Obryn]

Saves also account for things outside the PC's control like with a monk failing his reflex save. He could have been about to run and a bit of the ground gave way, or there was some loose gravel that cause him to slip or even movement off to the side that caught his attention for a split second and that was enough to distract him and not get out of the way in time.

Sounds a lot like post-hoc narrative justification of known mechanical effects to me! How very 4e of you!

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

We've explained. What I don't understand is why divine characters whose power comes at the whim of the Gods should use anything that approximates Vancian casting or Spell Points or other obviously controllable systems. (Or AEDU).

I don't either. Anyone that has ideas on a better magic system, post away.

Fine. You don't like it you don't have to do it. There is no law saying fighters have to take CAGI. Why are you trying to police how others play their characters?

I'm not. I'm suggesting that the game designers do that (in a particular way I advocate), which is kind of their job.

Indeed. If balancing the game isn't important, why do people object when it is balanced?

The problem isn't balance. The problem is the (massive and unnecessary) sacrifices to playability and plausibility made to achieve it and (in this case) the definition of balance.

Indeed. But that's no excuse why my level 10 fighter in AD&D or 3.X can't use a technique I have used in real life like Tide of Iron. The rules are limits - and what is being objected to here is that they limit a martial character far below the limitations of the real world.

Indeed. There's a lot of room for improvement there as well. There's no reason why anyone shouldn't be able to try and achieve a much broader variety of things than D&D allows, without class abilities/feats/powers.

Wrong. Process-based design only allows you to use the processes it models.

True enough. Though, if it does so broadly and abstractly and reasonably well, that ends up being quite a lot of processes. Of course, the same could be said of outcomes-based design, that it only allows you to use the outcomes it models.

The way I look at it, a good chunk of outcome-based 4e powers could be replaced by one simple system based around the concept of power attack that starts without a feat and allows certain feats to improve the effect. I'd much rather have rules for trying to swing harder and do more damage than have a suite of powers that boil down to "you swing hard and do more damage [with possibly a small, sometimes metagame-y rider]". By simply creating a model for aggressiveness, you have a lot less wasted space, a much more transparent and comprehensible ruleset, a lot more control in the hands of the player.

 

[Dragoslav]

I'd like to point out that Own the Battlefield is an Epic tier (level 22) power, so at that point the sort of thing that a hero of that magnitude can be expected to do is not even in the same league as the question of whether a Heroic tier Fighter should be able to do what CaGI or Tide of Iron let him do. It's also based on the Warlord's INT modifier.

It does for me, even more so when it works on an enemy who is clearly intelligent, cool headed, and has lots of combat experience. Reminds me of Bugs Bunny drawing the line in the sand and daring Yosemite Sam to step across it until they come to a cliff and he steps over that final line and ends up plummeting to the ground below.

Of course anything will seem ridiculous if compared to the most laughable cartoon example you can think of. That's like wondering why my level 20 Fighter can survive 18 attacks from a longsword and comparing it to the scene with the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

A Warlord with literally godlike intelligence and the experience of many, many (many!) battles behind him should be able to subtly manipulate the flow of battle to lure enemies into the position he wants them to be in through his quick ordering of feints, false retreats, and assaults from his allies.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Sounds a lot like post-hoc narrative justification of known mechanical effects to me! How very 4e of you!

-O

Not really because I'm still allowed a save.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't either. Anyone that has ideas on a better magic system, post away.

I'd go for something like the WFRP 2e magic system. Characters get a number of casting dice (d6) equal to their magic level, and can use some or all of them. Each spell may be attempted at will but has an activation number (4+, 7+, 15+, etc.). If all the dice roll a 1 they need to cleanse themselves before they can attempt miracles again. If there are any doubles in the dice, the God is slightly cranky - look up the miscast chart. If there are triples the God is really cranky. And if all four dice roll the same number ... run!

I'm not. I'm suggesting that the game designers do that (in a particular way I advocate), which is kind of their job.

But it is easy for you to make a 4e character with no metagame powers. I consider allowing both a superior choice because it allows everyone what they want.

The way I look at it, a good chunk of outcome-based 4e powers could be replaced by one simple system based around the concept of power attack that starts without a feat and allows certain feats to improve the effect. I'd much rather have rules for trying to swing harder and do more damage than have a suite of powers that boil down to "you swing hard and do more damage [with possibly a small, sometimes metagame-y rider]". By simply creating a model for aggressiveness, you have a lot less wasted space, a much more transparent and comprehensible ruleset, a lot more control in the hands of the player.

I wouldn't because you get enough analysis paralysis with the half dozen or so options 4e presents for how to hit someone.

 

[n00bdragon]

Face it. People just want the fighter to suck. They don't like it when he gets nice things even if they aren't playing him, and they will twist themselves into any mental pretzel they need to to justify this belief to themselves, no matter how ridiculous. He's the red-headed step child of D&D.

Why people do this is immaterial (and openly guessing would certainly count as flaming in this tinderbox of a forum). It's just a shame that such a large percentage of people who now play D&D basically grew up with and are only familiar with the one edition that whole-heartedly and unironically decided that "Casters rule mundanes drool". It's a shame that it's colored their impressions of what the game should be so... starkly.

 

[Obryn]

Not really because I'm still allowed a save.

4e attack vs. Will = 3e Will Save. The only difference is who's doing the rolling. There was, IIRC, an Unearthed Arcana variant that did the same thing.

-O

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Face it. People just want the fighter to suck. They don't like it when he gets nice things even if they aren't playing him, and they will twist themselves into any mental pretzel they need to to justify this belief to themselves, no matter how ridiculous. He's the red-headed step child of D&D.

Why people do this is immaterial (and openly guessing would certainly count as flaming in this tinderbox of a forum). It's just a shame that such a large percentage of people who now play D&D basically grew up with and are only familiar with the one edition that whole-heartedly and unironically decided that "Casters rule mundanes drool". It's a shame that it's colored their impressions of what the game should be so... starkly.

Why do powers make a fighter "not suck"? I play Pathfinder fighters a lot and they don't suck, in fact they are the exact opposite of suck. They don't need powers and magic spells to kick people's, gods, and other creature's ass.

I think some of you would be better off playing some other class.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

4e attack vs. Will = 3e Will Save. The only difference is who's doing the rolling. There was, IIRC, an Unearthed Arcana variant that did the same thing.

-O

Is it described as a magical compulsion?

 

[Obryn]

Face it. People just want the fighter to suck. They don't like it when he gets nice things even if they aren't playing him, and they will twist themselves into any mental pretzel they need to to justify this belief to themselves, no matter how ridiculous. He's the red-headed step child of D&D.

Why people do this is immaterial (and openly guessing would certainly count as flaming in this tinderbox of a forum). It's just a shame that such a large percentage of people who now play D&D basically grew up with and are only familiar with the one edition that whole-heartedly and unironically decided that "Casters rule mundanes drool". It's a shame that it's colored their impressions of what the game should be so... starkly.

In fairness, while there are indeed some who prefer fighters to be a crappy noob class, there are at least a few here who want a more capable fighter but have concerns related to the degree the metagame should play in it. I think it's a simple, elegant solution, but I can understand how some others in good faith would disagree.

-O