D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[B.T.]

Obryn:

Where's that "dumb, noob" fighter that I asked for earlier? I mean you talk about how they suck etc so how about give us an example so we can set you straight.

There isn't a dumb noob fighter in 3e / Pathfinder. If anything, the fighter is an advanced class because you have to know the mechanics of the system to make one that doesn't suck. Spellcasters you can pretty much pick-and-choose spells on a whim and you'll end up doing something useful.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

There isn't a dumb noob fighter in 3e / Pathfinder. If anything, the fighter is actually an advanced class because you have to know the mechanics of the system to make one that doesn't suck. Spellcasters you can pretty much pick-and-choose spells on a whim and you'll end up doing something useful.

Oh I know that but Obryn seems to insist there is a dumb, noob fighter out there and I wanted him/her to come out with it.

In my opinion, the Pathfinder fighter is actually a perfectly designed class because it can go from being the easiest class to build and play to the most complex. It encompasses all levels of play.

 

[pemerton]

In an rpg, characters can do what they want. They have more freedom, and more time, to push the limits of the world.

Characters can do whatever their players want them to do. But there is nothing obliging the players to push or explore the economic aspect of the world - it's part of some games (eg Burning Wheel) but not others (eg 4e). Likewise in some games exploring politial aspects of the world is central (eg in most of my games) but in others it is not (eg that's my impression of a certain sort of dungeon-delving game).

Well if you're really playing the role of the character, both will go hand in hand. Of course D&D is not "purely" a roleplaying game in that sense; there is typically a third-person element to it as well. However, it is nonetheless fairly typical that a character's and players perceptions and decisions will mirror each other, particularly in tactical situations.

That depends a lot on the table. I gave an express counterexample - where the player knows that something big is at stake, by inferring from obvious narrative cues, whereas the PC, being genre-blind within the fiction, doesn't and can't know.

So you're saying that a 4e fighter doesn't know when he's used his powers? What does he think about that one great attack he just did? How did he do that? Why doesn't he try to do it again?

No, the fighter doesn't know. The fighter will think about the one great attack that they just pulled off a successful and/or lucky manoeuvre. How did the fighter do it - using his/her fighting skill [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has discussed some of the details of this upthread). Why doesn't s/he try to do it again? Of course s/he does! Just as, every time, s/he is attempting a critical hit. But not every attempt succeeds.

it's really bizarre that a player chooses directly between having the character do something that is completely explained within the context of the game world (such as a basic attack) and something that isn't.

I don't see why that's bizarre. (Though I don't agree that making a basci attack is completely explained within the context of the gameworld - what does a basic attack represent? A swing at the head? The legs? Or what of the other permutations [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] described above.)

Clearly, magical characters know how many spells they have. I can't see why (under the 4e paradigm), other power sources are different.

I've explained why. Because they're metagame powers. (And I'm not even sure that what you say is true for spell-using PCs. It's true for a 3E wizard, who prepares spells, but it's not obvious to me that it's true for a 3E sorcerer.)

I think you've just explicated why saving throws were changed to reflect more tangible qualities, and why hit points should be too.

I don't see how metagame can be a bridge too far, but you're advocating radical changes to hit points!

Anyone can sit down with a group of friends and play make-believe and do anything you want. The only role of D&D rules (or any rules) is to restrict that freedom. Hopefully, the restrictions make the experience more focused, and take away some of the potential disagreement and nonsense that results from freeform rp-ing.

That being said, a process-based design which leaves effects to interpretation is more open-ended and less limiting than an outcomes-based design that asks you to explain where the outcomes came from.

I agree, more or less, about the role of RPG rules. But I don't undertstand what the evidence is for the second paragraph that I've quoted.

Here are three process-based games - Runequest, Rolemaster, and the combat-manouevre aspect of 3E/PF (the core hit point mechanic is not process-based).

Here are three outcome-based games - HERO, HeroWars/Quest, Over the Edge.

What is the evidence that RQ, RM or 3E/PF is more open-ended and less limiting than HERO, HW/Q or OtE? I don't know of any. In fact, I think it's highly arguable that the latter set of games is more open-ended and less-limiting.

They refuse to acknowledge the coolness of combat, and insist on replacing D&D's tough-as-nails, take-no-prisoners badass with a walking deck of "plot cards".

Either way they're game rules. There's nothing more "real" about process-simulation rules than "plot care" rules. As per your characterisation I've quoted above, they're just different devices for limiting and channelling the conflicts of freeform roleplaying. A narration of a dead orc is a narration of a dead orc, whatever the mechanical process that led to a game particfpant being authorised to undertake that act of narration.

I don't think the frequency of use is at issue. Characters frequently will face only a few rounds of combat in a day, and even fewer of those will be high-leverage rounds where these kinds of things matter.

This depends on other features of design. For instance, 4e is designed so that (i) the typical combat lasts 4 to 6 rounds, and (ii) many if not all of those rounds will be "high-leverage". In a different approach, Burning Wheel is designed so that, if a combat encounter is not "high-leverage", then the resolution doesn't use the full combat rules, but one of a couple of simple, single-roll resolution methods.

Anyone that has ideas on a better magic system, post away.

BW's Faith rules might be an example. Faith (for those characters with the Faithful trait) is rated like any other ability. Miracles are defined at a range of difficulty levels. Using faith requires the player to speak (in character) an appropriate prayer, and then succeeding at a Faith check at the appropriate difficulty. Retries are regulated under BW's general "Let it Ride" rule (ie no retries unless the situation dramaticaly changes). And failed attempts allow the GM to narrate some adverse consequence for the PC who has frivolously tried to invoke the powers of the heavens (as the designer puts it, "I'm sure the average GM will have no trouble playing god once in a while").

 

[pemerton]

I've yet to see an ability you've mentioned (aside from CaGI, which we both agreed is off the table) that can't be replicated by a feat, Expertise, or some system of augmenting attacks.

If it's at-will, then it can't (while being mechanically balanced) replicate an encounter power which (for example) does the same damage as a basic attack to multiple foes, at no greater cost in the action economy.

Some DMs use random encounters, and dungeons to clear out. THESE ARE NOT BADWRONGFUN! Apparently, this is not supported in 4e either.

I didn't say that there's anything wrong with such approaches. I explained why I don't like them - just as you apparently don't like a metagame-heavy resolution system. Whether or not 4e can handle them is a matter of some debate. Different 4e players posting on these boards have different views, and those who do play with random encounters and dungeon exploration use a range of techniques within 4e.

But as I said in my earlier post, I don't see what any of this has to do with my observation that not every day has fighting in it, and not every day with fighting in it sees every daily power being used.

More to the point, the fighter always drags the same metacards into the fight. The same powers (barring power swaps, which is another nonsensical metagame element that doesn't mirror how real training works, but I digress) every fight he has. Every combat encounter gives him exactly once chance to use Steel Serpent Strike. Every day he draws steel, he can use Brute Strike exactly once. The universe, like clockwork, gives him one use and one use only.

If by "the universe" you mean "the game rules", then yes. That's the nature of rules. If by "the universe" you mean "the ingame fiction" then no - to say otherwise would be to confuse ingame and metagame.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For the record, no one on the Process-sim side of the equation has ever explained to me what a basic attack is and why it takes six seconds for a fighter to swing a sword at someone. I find this entire idea inherently ridiculous in both 3.X and 4e (and 1 minute combat rounds in AD&D to be a level of padded sumo 4e doesn't come close to matching and certainly not a single swing).

 

[ForeverSlayer]

For the record, no one on the Process-sim side of the equation has ever explained to me what a basic attack is and why it takes six seconds for a fighter to swing a sword at someone. I find this entire idea inherently ridiculous in both 3.X and 4e (and 1 minute combat rounds in AD&D to be a level of padded sumo 4e doesn't come close to matching and certainly not a single swing).

It's not just swinging a sword in six seconds. There is also movement, followed by the actions of 3 or 4+ other people in the party.

 

[Manbearcat]

I am facepalming now. You can't see it, but it's happening.

I see your facepalm and I raise you a shaking my head.

I like 1e Fighters just fine. In 1e, where the rest of the system works cleanly with them.

Orangerization is mine. Its a great point and I agree with both sentences. I think the second sentence is really the heart of the issue of this thread and should be the design focus for the Fighter (and any other class really).

 

[Obryn]

There isn't a dumb noob fighter in 3e / Pathfinder. If anything, the fighter is an advanced class because you have to know the mechanics of the system to make one that doesn't suck. Spellcasters you can pretty much pick-and-choose spells on a whim and you'll end up doing something useful.

I agree - the 3e/PF Fighter is not a newbie class if it expects to achieve a good baseline of competence.

-O

 

[S'mon]

I'm almost certain that extended rests don't work this way.

Then you should go read the extended rest rules and discover your error.

An extended rest takes 6 hours; per RAW you must let 12 hours pass between extended rests. Hence you can use Daily 3 times in just over 24 hours if you get 2 extended rests in that period, plus the 12 hour interval.

 

[Remathilis]

The Fighter has to reach deep into his inner core to unleash his most powerful attacks. Hence he has to rest before he can use them again. Note that he can use a Daily at 8am, , rest to 2pm, then use the Daily again, so he can use them more than once per actual day.

In fact he can use a Daily at 00:00, rest 6 hours, use it again at 06:00, faff around for 12 hours to 18:00 then rest 6 hours to 00:00, the use the Daily again, 3 times in just over 24 hours.

And they said the 15 min game day was dead.

So my bad, he can use it 2-3 times if he immediately takes a 6 hour nap, does it again, waits 12 hours, takes a 6 hour nap, and does it again. Any player who tried that at my table would probably be left in the inn while the other PCs played on. So lets get over the technically moment and get to what is meant, once per day of adventuring.

If it's at-will, then it can't (while being mechanically balanced) replicate an encounter power which (for example) does the same damage as a basic attack to multiple foes, at no greater cost in the action economy.

Sure you can. SW saga did it with a hit to accuracy (-5 to hit, two attacks possible). It wasn't the best (the penalty was too high, a complaint I can apply to a LOT of Saga's math) but its doable.

The issue is the ADEU proponents are reverse engineering a problem out of the solution they've already picked. The question isn't "How can fighters gain dynamic abilities and yet be balanced?", its "How can fighters have abilities on par with wizards that don't require additional rolls, don't sacrifice attack accuracy or damage, don't require a chain of feats to learn, and work whenever the player wants them to as long as the rules says he can use it?" Well duh, I WONDER what your answer is going to be?

I didn't say that there's anything wrong with such approaches. I explained why I don't like them - just as you apparently don't like a metagame-heavy resolution system. Whether or not 4e can handle them is a matter of some debate. Different 4e players posting on these boards have different views, and those who do play with random encounters and dungeon exploration use a range of techniques within 4e.
But as I said in my earlier post, I don't see what any of this has to do with my observation that not every day has fighting in it, and not every day with fighting in it sees every daily power being used.

Not every day has fighting in it, but every day that DOES looks remarkably similar. A 5th level fighter could start with Dance of Steel, Steel Serpent Strike, and then spam Tide of Iron and/or Cleave for the remainder of the fight. If he's starting to lose, he might kick in Boundless Endurance and use either Crack the Shell or Comeback Strike. Then the next fight he has the exact same options. And the next one. And the next one.

I guess there is no rule saying a fighter HAS to open with his encounter powers. Or use his daily at all, or even use his at-wills rather than just go basic attack for fights. And yes, Page 42 exists (but is, as Obryn points out, the opposite of fiat as its COMPLETELY mother-may-I). But in my year of playing 4e, I never saw a fight that didn't go as discussed. Foe is slowed, foe is prone, push, push, cleave, push, push, push, dead.

Actually, re-looking over the PHB powers, I'm shocked on how many are "Add your dex/con to hit/damage if using weapon X". I had to dig pretty deep in the PHB to find powers that DID something other than add extra [w] or adding an ability boost if using a certain weapon. Are you sure 4e fights were as dynamic and fiat-filled as you remember them?

If by "the universe" you mean "the game rules", then yes. That's the nature of rules. If by "the universe" you mean "the ingame fiction" then no - to say otherwise would be to confuse ingame and metagame.

The ingame fiction has to adjust to the use of the metagame. Otherwise, there is no way explain what happened from the character's perspective. From the in-character perspective, Bob the fighter knows that somehow during most fights, he can knock one foe prone. It happens nearly every fight. Just that one foe too, it never seems to work if he tries it on another foe in that battle. But the next battle, he manages to do it again, but just the once. Sometimes, it doesn't work, so he never bothers to try it again during that battle either. Just that one foe gets knocked over...

Hey, 3e has it own warts (All hail Trip Monkey, King of the Prone Status) but as for Next, there has got to be a balance between "So good you use it every round", "So useless, you never use it" and "So good, but only works once per battle".