D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

[n00bdragon]

snip

I could dig it if Vancian casting is a must. Otherwise refresh the points however often a wizard refreshes them. Or you could just make the fighter exactly like the 3e sorcerer but instead of spells he gets combat maneuvers from level 1 to level 9.

 

[Obryn]

I think the core issue here is different people really want different things from the fighter and from the game at this point.

I couldn't agree more.

The more I think about it. The more I feel having two or even three editions at once ( a bit like we had in the 80s and early 90s) would possibly be the way for them to go. I think the preferences are so all over the map, that this core game is going to be too compromised for all of our sakes. Better to focus a bit, since the divide is there and isn't going away. Break D&D players into two or three groups and give them what they want.

The marketing more or less implied that each player could more or less choose what edition they're playing, if that makes sense. That's the whole modularity spiel. So having a 1e-style Fighter alongside a 4e-style Fighter and having them both able to contribute to an adventure isn't ridiculous.

For the record, I'm not arguing that "simple fighter" shouldn't exist as an option. I don't know how familiar you are with 4e stuff, but I was thrilled when the Essentials books were released because it let each player choose their level of complexity. That was one of my biggest issues with 4e, so I was thrilled that it was solved. I have a mix of those sorts of classes at my table now - and while I'm talking about a complex fighter here, I want to be clear - I'll be disappointed if simple builds of classes aren't present alongside complex ones in Next. It just shouldn't always be the Fighter.

-O

 

[Manbearcat]

<snip>

The aim SHOULD be: "<Snip>"

For your table and playstyle preference, not mine and many others. @n00bdragon addressed this with a very good post and @Bedrockgames mused about the same.

Two questions.

1.) Can the fighter "wrongfoot" the monster into the fire again? Can another PC try it on a different monster? Why not? Why can't he tide of iron him into the fire's square and achieve the same result? How does the player KNOW its a level-7 encounter power? Where did he come up with that? Where did YOU come up with all that 5 fire and slide and blind and control/striker thingamjig because thats NOT on my copy of page 42! I got a bunch of DCs and damage ranges per level and jack SQUAT about making your own encounter powers. Was that DMG2?
2.) How, really, is that different than "I push him into the firepit. DM: Great, make a CMB roll vs. his CMD. If you hit, he takes 3d6 fire damage and is on fire for 1d4 rounds?"

That's way more than 2 questions I'll address them in order.

- Absolutely.
- Absolutely.
- He could if he was a Fighter, with the At-Will Exploit of Tide of Iron, and the boiling stewpot on the spit over the fire was directly behind the enemy. In this case, it was a Rogue, the hazard was 10 feet away and not directly behind him. Therefore he needed a Slide 2. He was basically redirecting him with aggressive offensive flurries and footwork toward the hazard.
- The player needed to Slide 2 and wanted a fire damage effect (standard is 5 OG). He had a 7th level Enc and 1st Enc available (3rd was used). The 1st level would have supported the ability as well but he wanted to keep his 1st level encounter as he felt it was most useful for the rest of the fight.
- I have an extreme knowledge of Encounter Powers/At-Will powers and their relevant payload. The Damage Expressions are modelling slightly less damaging versions of standard At-Wills (Normal) and Encounters (Limited). You would use High for a straight damaging effect and possibly a weak control rider (while potentially lowering the damage by the + n and keeping the 3 dice), Medium for a damaging effect with a moderate control rider, Low for a damaging effect with a powerful control rider. Strikers are slightly different in that damage is there thing so you oftentimes have to bump them up one category from low to medium and medium to high. There is a modicum of advice on p42 but there is also other advice on Dungeon Articles and other sources. Further, it becomes very intuitive after a bit of experience.

Most attacks are simply riders to an attack (save vs. Con or blinded) though some could be be trained techniques (Robliar's Gambit or Whirlwind attack).

Something like that work?

That's a very good post. Something like that would work but I'm dubious of the success ratio with the secondary attack requirement (especially with the to hit stat being secondary or tertiary). I'd need confirmation of the tightness of it (relative to spellcasting classes) but I could support a system like that.

A PC can use a technique he doesn't know, but at double the cost in power points.

I understand this was just a very rough draft and just an example and the merit of the idea is not predicated on the ballpark math. However, I feel safe saying that I unequivocally don't support a double point cost for maneuvers. Something that punitive would likely result in improvisational attacks never occurring. If we want rich, thematic combat (with folks swinging from chandeliers and pushing people into fires or off balconies into the common room below), then we need to have a robust system for improvised attacks that people will be inclined to use. If the choice is always worse than a standard flurry or maneuver then the entire improvised attack system will be rendered null.

 

[pemerton]

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.

In real world melees, I don't think combatants make one swing and then stand around watching while everyone else takes a poke.

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.

Then let me add in the additional qualification - while also having a standard to-hit chance.

Not every day has fighting in it, but every day that DOES looks remarkably similar.

I've never seen any argument that every magic-user's day in AD&D looks remarkably the same. Even if the same spells have been memorised, the timing and sequence of their use will reflect the varying nature of the ingame situation. Likewise in 4e. For instance, the first attack made by the fighter in my game yesterday was an opportunity attack, because the invoker slid the fighter into a position to block a haures demon trying to charge out of a tunnel. And the fighter's first standard action was Battle Cry (11th level warpriest close burst encounter power), because by the time the fighter got to act one of the PCs had been bloodied and needed healing badly. I can't remember the last time the fighter led with Battle Cry.

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.

In my four years of playing 4e, I've never seen anything like what you describe. Variations in disposition of the PCs, disposition of the enemy, terrain, encounter stakes, etc all produce very different sequences of play.

For instance, in yesterday's game movement was very constricted - 7 phantom steeds and 6 PCs fighting teleporting enemies in a 3-square wide tunnel. The paladin led with Astral Thunder ahead of Strength of Ten because he could hit more targets and there was nowhere to push anyone. The previous fight, which took place in a cavern around 100' in diameter, was very different in terms of mobility and hence targetting.

I guess there is no rule saying a fighter HAS to open with his encounter powers.

It depends entirely on the situation. It's very common for the sorcerer in my game, for instance, to open with Blazing Starfall - an at-will - because his encouner powes have greater control, which he uses later in the combat when the necesary control tactics become more evident.

The only character who routinely leads with encounter powers is the invoker, because his at-will powers are noticably weaker as far as control is concerend.

That's great, but I guarantee your group is in the minority.

<snip>

In my (admittedly limited) experience with 4e, people are choosing between their powers, not looking for something unique and interesting to do in the game world.

Whereas in the first session of 4e that I ran a player tamed a rogue bear (improvised Nature and Diplomacy, from memory), while in the second session the same player, in combat with a wight, spoke a prayer to the Raven Queen to get advantage against it (improvised Religion).

For those whose combats have little improvisation or deviation from a script, I don't see how you think things will be more interesting if fighters have no abilities, or use a "power point" system that permits repetition, or can only do interesting things by sacrificing damage or to hit chances.

The ingame fiction has to adjust to the use of the metagame.

There is no ingame fiction until it is narrated by someone. So the ingame fiction always has to "adjust to the use of the metagame" - ie be narrated in accordance with the rules. There is nothing magical about fiction that is read off process simulation rules, compared to fiction that is narrated to fit with an outcome such as that mandated by Come and Get It.

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.

Why does Bob not try again? He doesn't know that he can't knock a foe prone, only that he doesn't.

But in fact, how many builds are there that can knock a foe prone only once per battle? Because 4e, like 3E before it, encourages tactical specialisation (in damage types, weapon types, etc) there is a strong likelihood that any given PC will have multiple powers that can do similar things. For instance, the polearm fighter in my game has multiple forced-movement encounter and daily bursts, plus Footwork Lure at will.

Furthermore, as I said upthread, who (in the gameworld) is keeping a tally? Just as I assume that my wizard PCs aren't calculating the ratio of orcs killed to new spell-levels mastered (both XP and levelling are purely metagame constructs that would be absurd if incorporated into the ingame perspecive), so I assume that my fighter PCs aren't tracking the ingame manifestation of metagame constraints. And I assume that noone is calculating that, over the long run, exactly 1 in 20 blows is a critical, whoever the combatants involved.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, neither am I. He's just my online alias.

That depends on what your definition of "is" is. As always, play what you like

That's just it - I have yet to see such a feat. My grave concerns are how to balance such a scheme, because at-will+too strong is just as bad as at-will but too weak.

That still seems like sidestepping the question. It sounds like you think it can be done. You just haven't been satisfied yet.

If daily and encounter powers are ruled out, where are the mightier effects coming in? A short list would be (in 4e terms) blind, daze, stun, immobilized, restrained, weakened, pushed, prone, multi-attacks, effects to help defending, and - if instant death is in the game at all, which is still debatable, that as well. And the Fighter shouldn't have to wait until crazy levels for much of it.

That can come in different forms. Situational powers, expertise dice, or encounter powers that satisfy most people (probably a moving goal, but something fatigued-based?).

But, I do agree with you. Fighters (and fight-based characters in general) need to be able to do that stuff. In my RPG (goes to level 20), by level 5 a physically fighting-based character can, while attacking for full damage:[sblock]Preface on levels in the game world: level 4 = average settled adult; level 8 = a very experienced or very well-trained adult; level 12 = powerful, very well respected or feared, and capable of overcoming nearly all complications that arise in their field; level 16 = a heroic, infamous, or an exceptionally powerful being.

By level 5:
1) knock enemies back (save to negate)
2) cause bleeding over hours (save to negate)
3) reposition enemies your size or less (save to negate)
4) gain a second attack against any target (iterative attacks cap at 2 attacks, like Trailblazer) (no save)
5) deafen an opponent for 1 round (save to negate)
6) knock an opponent down (save to negate)
7) deal extra damage (no save)
8) gain an extra 5 ft. step (no save)
9) cause the opponent to be shaken (save to negate)
10) cause an opponent to be entangled until an standard action is spent to fix it (save to negate)
11) cause the opponent to be staggered (save to negate)
12) deal 1 attribute damage to Str, Dex, Con, or Int (-1 on all checks involved with that attribute, takes a day to go away) (save to negate)
13) attack multiple foes near himself (no save)

By level 17, he can also:
1) cause bleeding over minutes (save to negate) (level 11)
2) deal more damage (no save) (level 11)
3) reposition enemies up to six sizes above you (save to negate)
4) blind enemies (save to negate) (level 11)
5) drop enemies to -1 HP and dying (save to negate) (level 15)
6) kill the opponent (save to negate)
6) take four extra 5 ft. steps (no save) (level 15)
7) cause the opponent to be nauseated (save to negate) (level 11)
8) cause the opponent to be dazed for 1 round (save to negate) (level 9)
9) cause the opponent to be stunned for 1 round (save to negate) (level 13)
10) cause the opponent to be fatigued until 8 hours of rest (save to negate) (level 7)
11) cause the opponent to be exhausted until 1 hour of rest (then fatigued until 8) (save to negate) (level 11)
12) cause the opponent to be flat-footed for 1 round (level 11) (save to negate)
13) deal 8 attribute damage to Str, Dex, Con, or Int (each day removes 1 attribute damage) (save to negate) (level 15)[/sblock]
And, that's just by having Base Attack. From here, you can enter one of nine different stances (you need to have a 16 in an attribute and a single feat to qualify for each of them), use any maneuver from a stance you qualify for (about ten maneuvers per stance, and you only need to qualify for the stance, not be in it), grab feats for combat, use the Leadership, Martial Prowess, and Tactics skills to give combat bonuses, and grab status effects, miscellaneous damage, etc. And that's just combat.

Essentially, that's not counting "class abilities" that might do these things as well, or add more damage, or give you more breadth, or whatever. Is my method different from others? Sure. Are my ideal numbers different? Probably. Is this too many options to have just lying around? For a lot of people, yeah. But is my sentiment "the Fighter needs to be good, including status effects"? Definitely. My basic, uncolored warrior can do almost everything you listed -give him a couple special abilities and he can do all of it except Weakened (though the attribute damage can make enemies deal less damage); just grab a checked status effect, and the Bodyguard / Guardian / Greater Guardian feats. And he'll literally redirect attacks to him, with those feats, as he steps in the way.

I get the want for awesome Fighters. I do. I tried to make people that want to be good at combat be good at combat. So, yeah. I get it, man. I want Fighters to rock, too. I hear "people want Fighters to suck so magic will rule" thrown out a couple times per conversation, and I just let those go. They do apply to some very small amount of posters, but just because I don't like Encounter or Daily powers, it doesn't mean I want weak Fighters, too. And I'm willing to bet that mine have more options than yours do (good in my eyes; bad in Neonchameleon's eyes, and I understand why).

Anyways, let's just say that I agree with your goal. I got all of those options listed on one page, for my warriors. I think there might be some middle ground, too (encounters explicitly tied to fatigue, with maneuvers in a shared fatigue pool). But we won't know unless they test them. As always, play what you like

Page 42 is used almost every combat at least once and there is absolutely no "mother may I" involved. Its always:

PC: "I'm near this boiling stewpot, hanging on the spit over the fire...I'm going to wrongfoot him into the fire with a level 7 limited use (level 7 encounter power equivalent)."

My first, honest question is "if the fire is hanging around, shouldn't it be more at-will damage, not encounter?" I ask honestly. The fire is going to stay there, I assume, so that'd be what I think it'd be. I don't play 4e, but I've read page 42. It's cool. If the fire is hanging around, I thought it would deal at-will level damage, wouldn't it?

Describe intent. Say yes.

Isn't this the part where it's no longer player fiat? You have to rely on the DM to "say yes". What happens if he says no? Or, what if he says yes, but it's at-will, rather than encounter-level? This seems like there is rules support, but it's not quite strong enough to allow the player to declare what he's doing, and have it happen by his fiat. I think page 42 is cool. I'm glad they included it. It's useful for the type of game I see 4e to be. However, you don't have a "player fiat" ability here unless you, as DM, let the player decide all the variables. He'd have to pick the damage level, secondary effects, etc. Otherwise, this is "mother may I" but with more support. As always, play what you like

in the second session the same player, in combat with a wight, spoke a prayer to the Raven Queen to get advantage against it (improvised Religion).

Did you have to give the okay for this abilities to work? If so, we're getting further from the "player fiat" that Obryn was talking about. Does 4e say that you can make a prayer to get combat advantage against a wight? If not, this is a more defined "mother may I" situation than what Manbearcat described, above. As always, play what you like

 

[Manbearcat]

My first, honest question is "if the fire is hanging around, shouldn't it be more at-will damage, not encounter?" I ask honestly. The fire is going to stay there, I assume, so that'd be what I think it'd be. I don't play 4e, but I've read page 42. It's cool. If the fire is hanging around, I thought it would deal at-will level damage, wouldn't it?

Isn't this the part where it's no longer player fiat? You have to rely on the DM to "say yes". What happens if he says no? Or, what if he says yes, but it's at-will, rather than encounter-level? This seems like there is rules support, but it's not quite strong enough to allow the player to declare what he's doing, and have it happen by his fiat. I think page 42 is cool. I'm glad they included it. It's useful for the type of game I see 4e to be. However, you don't have a "player fiat" ability here unless you, as DM, let the player decide all the variables. He'd have to pick the damage level, secondary effects, etc. Otherwise, this is "mother may I" but with more support.

Going to attempt to address this all at once.

Much of this cuts to the questions that Obryn has been asking about "how do we get the payload of large riders without augmented basic attacks (Encounter Powers)"? Remathilis composed a brief augment system where Fighters start out with a resource pool and expend it for larger riders. Your first question of "could this particular attack have been at-will" is related to this issue; in order for the Rogue to pull this altogether, he needed a Slide 2 (medium control effect) and the result of knocking into the stewpot and getting the boiling liquid on him would e 5 ongoing Fire Damage (of-level for a 7th level encounter power).

So, payload-wise we have:

Weapon attack vs Reflex (effectively a + 3 to hit) + Single target slide 2 (medium control rider) + 5 ongoing Fire Damage (save ends) (medium control rider) + creating difficult terrain and putting the target there (the target now cannot shift so will either have to eat an OA or take fire damage each round at the beginning of his turn for standing in the firepit). That is beyond the payload of even the Low At-Will Damage expression. However, I definitely would have given him the opportunity to do it as an At-Will improvised attack and making it a non-weapon attack and removing the paltry Low Damage Expression. Hence, I would have said yes. However, he asked to use his 7th level Encounter Power as a Weapon Attack (so he could get his Sneak Attack). As a 7th level Encounter (that basically has a level 8 hazard that has a damage/control expression exactly as I outlined, because 4e math is very intuitive; Flame Jet Attack: +11 vs. Reflex. Hit: 3d8 + 4 fire damage and ongoing 5 fire damage [save ends].), its easy to adjudicate.

That's not "mother may I". If he says here is what I want to do, and the default answer is yes and there are clear guidelines on how to use this and a thousand and one At-Will and Encounter Powers for you to study so you have intimate knowledge of the payload of each tier of power...that works out as fiat at the table. If it is "mother may I", then its the most user-friendly and hard-coded "mother may I" possible.

Now, if someone asks "Can I attack 4 guys, fly across the street and have a sandwich in the blink of an eye, teleport back and knock them prone with my BAMF?"...well, I don't think saying no there says anything about whether or not level 42 is intrinsically "fiat" or "mother may I". We're basically just talking about adjudicating payload. There is a point in any game with an action economy and a payload-by-level expectation where NO is going to override the default answer of yes, as it should.

 

[Remathilis]

That's way more than 2 questions I'll address them in order.

What can I say, when I get's on a roll...

- Absolutely.
- Absolutely.

Doesn't that no longer make it "encounter" and instead makes it "at will?"

- He could if he was a Fighter, with the At-Will Exploit of Tide of Iron, and the boiling stewpot on the spit over the fire was directly behind the enemy. In this case, it was a Rogue, the hazard was 10 feet away and not directly behind him. Therefore he needed a Slide 2. He was basically redirecting him with aggressive offensive flurries and footwork toward the hazard.

My bad on the class of the PC. Still, if a PC had used a normal attack (like ToI) to push him into the stewpot, does he get the extra 3d10 + 5 fire OG?

- The player needed to Slide 2 and wanted a fire damage effect (standard is 5 OG). He had a 7th level Enc and 1st Enc available (3rd was used). The 1st level would have supported the ability as well but he wanted to keep his 1st level encounter as he felt it was most useful for the rest of the fight.

Now that's interesting. He's basically sacrificing his level 7 encounter power for an on-the-fly power of alternate effect. I'd not heard that done before. It'd be hell on wheels to balance, but a system of "on the fly" powers (or even the ability to swap them out between fights, akin to a mage) would've gone a long way to fixing my problem with the spamming of the same powers over and over.

Still, it doesn't seem to be a RAW, but a damn well done house rule.

- I have an extreme knowledge of Encounter Powers/At-Will powers and their relevant payload. The Damage Expressions are modelling slightly less damaging versions of standard At-Wills (Normal) and Encounters (Limited). You would use High for a straight damaging effect and possibly a weak control rider (while potentially lowering the damage by the + n and keeping the 3 dice), Medium for a damaging effect with a moderate control rider, Low for a damaging effect with a powerful control rider. Strikers are slightly different in that damage is there thing so you oftentimes have to bump them up one category from low to medium and medium to high. There is a modicum of advice on p42 but there is also other advice on Dungeon Articles and other sources. Further, it becomes very intuitive after a bit of experience.

Again, a damn better chart (or a dang Chapter 42) which explained how to build custom powers would have gone a large way toward improving the power system. 4e, afaik, never gave solid guidelines for how to build new powers in the core books (for monsters OR PCs); probably because WotC was hell bent to sell you a steady stream of OFFICIAL powers by way of DDi, books, and power cards. (WotC really frowned on any custom stuff in 4e, if the char builder was any indication.)

That's a very good post. Something like that would work but I'm dubious of the success ratio with the secondary attack requirement (especially with the to hit stat being secondary or tertiary). I'd need confirmation of the tightness of it (relative to spellcasting classes) but I could support a system like that.

DC would be set like a wizards (opponent rolls Con save vs DC 10 + fighter's strength mod). Saves could represent a lessening of the effect (1/2 as many rounds, or stunned rather than unconscious), or just be for stronger effects (such as paralyzation or death effects).

I understand this was just a very rough draft and just an example and the merit of the idea is not predicated on the ballpark math. However, I feel safe saying that I unequivocally don't support a double point cost for maneuvers. Something that punitive would likely result in improvisational attacks never occurring. If we want rich, thematic combat (with folks swinging from chandeliers and pushing people into fires or off balconies into the common room below), then we need to have a robust system for improvised attacks that people will be inclined to use. If the choice is always worse than a standard flurry or maneuver then the entire improvised attack system will be rendered null.

It was just an option for people who realize that picking "Tripping Strike" was cool against the goblins, but its useless against the Carrion Crawler and if they wanted, they could use "Parrying Riposte" instead, but at a tremendous cost.

 

[Manbearcat]

Doesn't that no longer make it "encounter" and instead makes it "at will?"

My bad on the class of the PC. Still, if a PC had used a normal attack (like ToI) to push him into the stewpot, does he get the extra 3d10 + 5 fire OG?

Going to address these simultaneously.

1) If the PC wanted to expend his limited use encounter power for a limited use damage expression improvised attack from p42 then that is what we shall do.

2) If a Fighter was doing the deal here and the enemy had the stewpot right behind him (such that ToI would push him into it) it would be:

- Tide of Iron > Single Use Terrain Effect (Boiling Stewpot); Trigger: Target enters space occupied by Boiling Stewpot, Attack: of-level + 3 (+ 7 in this case) vs Reflex; Effect: 5 Ongoing Fire Damage (Save Ends) > Square becomes difficult terrain and any enemy that enters or starts its turn within the square (firepit and mangled spit/loose pot) take 5 fire damage.

Still, it doesn't seem to be a RAW, but a damn well done house rule.

That has always been my understanding of RAW p42 since they compared the example to the payload of an 8th level Rogue spending her 7th level encounter power. I could be wrong, but everything else I've read in Dragon and elsewhere supports my understanding of it. If I'm somehow wrong, I'll continue to use it in that fashion.

 

[Manbearcat]

Double post

 

[Obryn]

That still seems like sidestepping the question. It sounds like you think it can be done. You just haven't been satisfied yet.

It wasn't intended to sidestep - what I'm saying is, I don't think the range of effects I find desirable can all happen at-will.

I wish I could respond to the rest of your post, but that's the long and the short of it. Your own system sounds very interesting, and it's good to see some whammy effects in the mix.

-O