I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[billd91]

Since those superpowers also have included "great at fighting" in the past and presumably will in the future, the fighter's value at the table is likely to be limited.

Notice that in D&D that typically comes with substantial cost. Tenser's Transformation turned wizards into relatively crappy fighters... and kept them from casting at the same time.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Let's keep in mind that in the Design Goals, the Fighter's mundaneness is relative to mythic heroism - the Fighter shouldn't be a Hexblade/Swordsage/etc., but rather Beowulf and Roland.

So a Level 1 Fighter should be Bull Rushing Orcs and scattering them about with abandon, but a Level 20 Fighter should be able to Grapple a Dragon.

 

[Aenghus]

Notice that in D&D that typically comes with substantial cost. Tenser's Transformation turned wizards into relatively crappy fighters... and kept them from casting at the same time.

I'm not the person you were replying to but want to comment.

1) "Good at fighting" doesn't necessarily mean good at beating up enemies, as that works against the typical wizard strengths in most editions. Wizards can defeat enemies without beating them up.

2) If the wizard wants to beat things up, Tenser's Transformation is still a poor choice compared to the other options typically available. Polymorph Self-type spells, Summon Monster-type spells and buffing spells such as Blur, Mirror Image, Haste, Stoneskin or Ironguard are more effective and lack drawbacks.

I've never seen a wizard player who knew what he was doing cast Tenser's Transformation , given the drawback of not being able to cast removes the wizard's trump card. That spell is level 6, well into the quadratic portion of the wizard power curve.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Let's keep in mind that in the Design Goals, the Fighter's mundaneness is relative to mythic heroism - the Fighter shouldn't be a Hexblade/Swordsage/etc., but rather Beowulf and Roland.

So a Level 1 Fighter should be Bull Rushing Orcs and scattering them about with abandon, but a Level 20 Fighter should be able to Grapple a Dragon.

Please!

A level 1 fighter should be scattering orcs around with abandon. (Possibly level 3 or 4 - orcs should be strong). But if we look at the actual demonstrated capabilities of the Oathbreaker, nothing Odin does is beyond a level 17 wizard. And Thor and Loki are slightly lower level. Given that Thor at one point literally wrestled age almost to a standstill, I'd put grappling with dragons as about level 10. By level 20 they should be able to wrestle entities such as Time and Death.

 

[Fifth Element]

Please!

A level 1 fighter should be scattering orcs around with abandon. (Possibly level 3 or 4 - orcs should be strong). But if we look at the actual demonstrated capabilities of the Oathbreaker, nothing Odin does is beyond a level 17 wizard. And Thor and Loki are slightly lower level. Given that Thor at one point literally wrestled age almost to a standstill, I'd put grappling with dragons as about level 10. By level 20 they should be able to wrestle entities such as Time and Death.

This strikes me as a "Gandalf is only a 5th-level magic-user" argument. I sincerely hope we're not looking at level 20 = literal deity -type advancement.

 

[Doug McCrae]

By level 20 they should be able to wrestle entities such as Time and Death.

Superman punched a hole thru time in Justice League One Million. It's more badass than the old 'fly faster than the speed of light' method.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This strikes me as a "Gandalf is only a 5th-level magic-user" argument. I sincerely hope we're not looking at level 20 = literal deity -type advancement.

He is - and in 3.X we are looking at level 20 = literal deity in all but name. And the list of things a level 17 wizard with spells like is more powerful than include Zeus and Odin. The Genesis spell is level 9, and the Pathfinder Create Demiplane is worse and much more accessible. Creating their own world tends to be the capstone ability of the greatest of the Gods (Zeus certainly couldn't).

Superman punched a hole thru time in Justice League One Million. It's more badass than the old 'fly faster than the speed of light' method.

Yup. This.

 

[Minigiant]

When it comes to the fighter if you want the fighter to be best at fighting, you have to:

1) Make sure the fighter is obviously the best at fighting

And
2) Make fighting a viable, sensible, and commonly applicable solution to problems at all levels of play.

Once you do that, it doesnt matter how simple or complex the fighter class is.

 

[Mark CMG]

1) I would rather roll vs fixed "DC" of 10 plus the dex. It makes the outcome less random & it is IME a bit faster. Its hardly a deal breaker & it is spliting hairs to bicker over D20+dex vs 10 + dex but there you go.

Naw, that explanation suggests equivalency in the methods. I understand why a player might want to have fewer variable factors but that's why players are encouraged to avoid them if they can. This is one of those situations that feels too much like bubblewrapping the corners.

2) If the under table sliding is a narrative option why is the fighter having to make 2 extra rolls to suceed? If he was getting some benefit from the manoevre (advantage for his unusual attack vector or the extra distance in a slippery situation or avoiding OAs by being under the table) then fair enough. If he is just using a cool description then mechanically it is just moving & attacking. Players should not be penalised for cool descriptions, provided these are adding to the game not just dragging it to a crawl.

There are multiple points at which something requires resolution, and their could even be more depending on how complicated the narration becomes. One is a roll against a static condition, the slippery floor slide, and the other is an opposed roll against an active opponent, grabbing someone's leg that doesn't want to be grabbed. By claiming it is a penalty, you suggest there is an adversarial relationship between player and DM, which isn't the case. Arguing at the table that the DM is trying to penalize a player would certainly bring such a game to a crawl. It's not personal, it is just an adjudication of the situation based on the factors presented and utilizing only two types, one each, of standard resolution mechanic. Adding in a plus ten for whatever reason seems like extra math for its own sake. Why not just set the DC ten lower and do a straight roll? Do Spinal Tap's amps really need to go up to eleven?

3) I am sure there will be multiple ways of doing the same thing. You seem to have demonstrated that one way is strict RAW & the other way is DM fiat & I am not convinced that the latter is simpler or faster in practice or anything to do with fighters qua fighters.

Straight roll versus DC and the opposed check are two of the simplest. You could add more complicated resolution mechanics to the mix but I've yet to see a convincing argument. Adjudication isn't "fiat" in any capricious sense, which often gets implied when that word is used. What I've actually demonstrated is a comparison between early D&D and later-era D&D, and the former is considerably faster. You do realize that this design discussion that WotC and the fans are having is about that very thing? It has been framed as simple versus complex for whatever reason. Of course, that isn't really a true assessment as a narrative and swiftly adjudicated so-called simple system can be quite complex in its narration. What you accidentally point out in your comparison is the misrepresentation that one way is not complex but rather fraught with reliance on a DM who, heaven forbid, might suggest resolutions that cannot be foreseen and thus might be meant to harm someone character. This, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that good DMs, which is to say most DMs, strive for consistency. Gaming with the same DM for any length of time will be marked by even faster play than the system, which is fast to begin with, portends.

I do agree with the sentiment you express though

If they can balance a wizard with a simple fighter then I am sure they can balance a simple fighter with a complex one but without 4es strict frameworks it's an unproven "if"

That implies that it is proven in 4E and I'd like to hear how you believe that to be the case.

 

[Vikingkingq]

There are multiple points at which something requires resolution, and their could even be more depending on how complicated the narration becomes. One s a roll against a static condition, the slippery floor slide, and the other is an opposed roll against an active opponent, grabbing someone's leg that doesn't want to be grabbed. By claiming it is a penalty, you suggest there is an adversarial relationship between player and DM, which isn't the case. Arguing at the table that the DM is trying to penalize a player would certainly bring such a game to a crawl. It's not personal, it is just an adjudication of the situation based on the factors presented and utilizing only two types, one each, of standard resolution mechanic. Adding in a plus ten for whatever reason seems like extra math for its own sake. Why not just set the DC ten lower and do a straight roll? Do Spinal Tap's amps really need to go up to eleven?

The issue is that the more resolution points you have, the more likely it is for a player to roll badly, and since the maneuver requires all of them to succeed for the player to accomplish their narrative desires, it makes the likelihood of overall success that much lower.

Keep in mind, while simulationism is one design goal, you also need to design to player psychology. If the designer wants players to attempt maneuvers frequently, it's important that A. resolving maneuvers is straightforward and quick to resolve (because if it's too complicated and takes too long to resolve, players and DMs will find it annoying to adjudicate), and B. players have a good chance to succeed.