I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[Mark CMG]

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.

First, the narrative in this case would have been introduced by the player. Second, the tougher it is to succeed, the more pleasure that is derived from the accomplishment.

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.

Naw. Two rolls isn't egregious. The benefit of sliding under the table might be to avoid missile fire from the balcony, for example. The benefit of grabbing the leg as the PC slides through might be to keep the sliding DC lower. Players will always do cool things and can do many more cool things if the game isn't bogged down in restrictive mechanics and cumbersome resolutions. A DM might even suggest that sliding under the table is fairly simple, maybe a DC 10 ("add your Dex mod") but that stopping at exactly the point where the player can stab upward on the opponent would more difficult at maybe a DC 15. The player might even negotiate the situation asking if he could grab a leg when sliding through to ensure stopping in the right place, and the DM might respond that it would lower the slide DC to 8 but require an opposed Dex check for the grab. The player might think that the opposed Dex check should be easy because his opponent is a lumbering oaf and the DM might even suggest that an additional plus two mod might be warranted because the opponent might not see it coming. Of course this all happens swiftly and even more so in a game where the players trust the DM to adjudicate fairly. A trusted DM is always going to try and give the player the best chance to succeed and even make suggestions toward those ends.

The better DMs among us have also likely noted that a static DC check followed by an opposed DC check followed by a to hit roll is an example of building dramatic tension during gameplay by the rule of three. The better DMs would also be sympathetic to the player who tried cool things and probably utilize a bad roll as a chance to reward the player anyway or add in another game element. Perhaps the slide goes well but the grab is missed horribly. The DM might describe it somewhat comically but end the description by throwing the player a bone.

"You slide under the table well enough but completely miss grabbing your opponent's leg. He, on the other hand, is completely oblivious to you as you slide past him and onward under the next table along. Huddled there you find what appears to be a rich merchant and a young girl. He shoves a small bag of coins into your hand and says, 'Help my niece and I get out of this tavern alive and there's more where that came from.' You noticed the girl winced when he claimed she was his niece."

You don't encourage players trying cool things but simply making them easier. That actually just lessens how cool they are. You encourage that type of play by keeping the players engaged and knowing that even in failure some opportunities are to be had.

 

[Vikingkingq]

First, the narrative in this case would have been introduced by the player. Second, the tougher it is to succeed, the more pleasure that is derived from the accomplishment.

True, but how the narrative is to be resolved is introduced by the DM, and again, you need to keep the difficulty level below the level at which it becomes an active disincentive for people to try.

Naw. Two rolls isn't egregious. The benefit of sliding under the table might be to avoid missile fire from the balcony, for example. The benefit of grabbing the leg as the PC slides through might be to keep the sliding DC lower. Players will always do cool things and can do many more cool things if the game isn't bogged down in restrictive mechanics and cumbersome resolutions.

You don't encourage players trying cool things but simply making them easier. That actually just lessens how cool they are. You encourage that type of play by keeping the players engaged and knowing that even in failure some opportunities are to be had.

First of all, it's three rolls: roll to slide, roll to grab, and roll to attack at a penalty. So there's three points at which this one maneuver could fail, and there's not much added reward for the added risk. And if it fails, you have to kludge and improvise - which has diminishing returns in terms of keeping a scene going forwards along an arc.

In my opinion it's more restrictive and cumbersome than Slide Attack being an Attack Roll versus Dex.

 

[Mark CMG]

True, but how the narrative is to be resolved is introduced by the DM, and again, you need to keep the difficulty level below the level at which it becomes an active disincentive for people to try.

Maybe. Sometimes that is precisely the opposite. I don't believe in always making things possible. So, too, sometimes something being more difficult and resulting in failure is more incentive than succeeding at something where the bar was lowered.

First of all, it's three rolls: roll to slide, roll to grab, and roll to attack at a penalty.

Yes. I point that out in my last post.

So there's three points at which this one maneuver could fail,

Nope, there's your assumptive error. In fact it is two maneuvers and an attack. And, btw, tying maneuvers to attacks is not necessarily good design. I might narratively want to perform that maneuver to get to a comrade and pull them down before a blast goes off or to get to the other side of a table only to reach up and snag a silver chalice. Don't get locked into restrictive design that steers roleplaying games toward combat.

and there's not much added reward for the added risk.

Only because you're approaching this as someone who has made up his mind that a single roll is better. A player who needs to make a roll, or two rolls, or three rolls, finds that they feel more accomplished after succeeding at three rather than just at two and so on, whether those rolls come as part of a set or individually.

And if it fails, you have to kludge and improvise - which has diminishing returns in terms of keeping a scene going forwards along an arc.

You don't HAVE to do anything. It's just good DMing to keep things interesting and layered and when an opportunity presents itself, you often take it. I have to admit, though, this is the first time since beginning to RPG in 1974 that I seem to have come up against someone so against improvisation in an RPG.

Anyway, I don't dictate arcs as a DM, I allow the actions of the players to do so. The game isn't a story until it has already been played. They explore the environment, I facilitate their senses. They take actions, I adjudicate and use resolution mechanics to determine the outcome, then I fill them in based on what they are capable of knowing (their version of the consequences of their actions).

In my opinion it's more restrictive and cumbersome than Slide Attack being an Attack Roll versus Dex.

Sure, you could combine them for less effect. It's worth pointing out, though, that there's a contradictory attitude regarding what you believe to be restrictive in resolution mechanics and what you seem to feel is the DM's job regarding how game becomes story.

 

[functionciccio]

I wonder if we really need the Fighter if there is nothing that makes the Fighter 'the Fighter'.
If the entire class is based on something *every* class can do, which in this case is basic attack with improv. to keep things somewhat interesting, there really isn't that much going on.

Agreed.

As others have already said, every class can "improvise" actions, so this cannot be considered a feature of the fighter class.

Actually sometimes it seems kind of an excuse.
"Ah, yes, I can teleport, stop the time, make a wish, create a demiplane, but you can always improvise!"

So, yes, the fighter ("simple" or "complex") can improvise (we all agree on that), but it also needs to bring to the table some actual, mechanical, measurable abilities.

So, for example, by the time our wizard is able to cast 'finger of death' or 'disintegrate', our fighter should be able to kill an enemy with a single blow of his weapon.

 

[Kavon]

Actually sometimes it seems kind of an excuse.
"Ah, yes, I can teleport, stop the time, make a wish, create a demiplane, but you can always improvise!"

Indeed.
Also, saying "this is how it should be because that's how it's always been" is a pointless arguement, since it doesn't have to be. Some people might want it, but that's not the point (and they'll get what they want anyway, their way will be supported). The point is that there are plenty of people that do want more.

If the 'simple' Fighter should work like this, then it should be a measure with which all other 'simple' classes should be judged.. As in.. All 'simple' classes only get a basic attack (or equivalent) and the rest is pure improvisation.
I'm fine with this, actually. It gives it a very nice base to work from and add to.

So, yes, the fighter ("simple" or "complex") can improvise (we all agree on that), but it also needs to bring to the table some actual, mechanical, measurable abilities.

So, for example, by the time our wizard is able to cast 'finger of death' or 'disintegrate', our fighter should be able to kill an enemy with a single blow of his weapon.

Exactly. The abilities the classes use should be different, but they should all be playing on the same level. Doing 'quite a lot of damage' is useless when 'doing damage' becomes irrelevant.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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.

Twenty, not so much... thirty-six? Yes please. A party of adventurers at 20th level ought to be able to take on a god and possibly win. Eighteen is when demigods should start turning into gods, just as nine is when superheroes start turning into demigods and four is when heroes start turning into superheroes.

 

[Campbell]

As I see it there are two basic issues that come up when have simple fighters slotted alongside of spell casting characters with discrete mechanically defined abilities -

• Anytime you give the ability to choose between discrete options you are allowing players to differentiate themselves on the basis of smart mechanical play. What's the balance point for simple fighters vs. complex casters? Is it average caster play? Is it optimal caster play? If a simple fighter performs as well as a caster played optimally than the players of casters feel as if their judicious use of resources was for naught. They don't feel rewarded for the effort they put it. If you balance on average ability to play the game smart players will inevitably drift towards playing casters and end up having a stronger impact on the events of the game assuming they care to have an impact on the game. You can't balance classes based on the results of play that exists outside the rules of the game because it's freely available to everyone unless you say something along the lines of 'Only fighters can stunt. If Clerics try something outside the bounds of the rules they automatically fail'. I'm sure that would go over well.
• Caster types have too much breadth. The ability to be effective in both the tactical and operational arenas means that martial types can only shine when casters are played poorly or the DM specifically invalidates casters through spell resistance, anti-magic fields, extremely strong saves, etc. If fighters lack tools to meaningfully exert dramatic change on the operational level than wizards should have to say "go get 'em" to fighters when combat breaks out. Admittedly this is better in AD&D where spell slots are far more limited than 3e/PF. Still it leaves the feeling that fighters are only there for when casters don't feel like being awesome. This applies just as much to thieves/rogues in the operational environment.

 

[P1NBACK]

The problem, once again, is that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Fighter Class.

Because I can just as easily talk about that one time I played a Wizard and I did way more than just cast spells.

Or, in other words, there was nothing inherent to the Fighter class that let you do all of those other things, and therefore, this is a red herring comment it applies equally well to a character of any class, and therefore has no place in a "What should the Fighter do (that someone else can't)?" discussion.

It has everything to do with the Fighter class. Traditionally, best armor, best attacks, best HP, good saves.

Therefore, the Fighter is free to take more risks, get more involved and have freedom to make the occasional mistake.

Try taking a Wizard into combat without his spells... "I throw a dart" is about as exciting as that gets.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

As I see it there are two basic issues that come up when have simple fighters slotted alongside of spell casting characters with discrete mechanically defined abilities -

• Anytime you give the ability to choose between discrete options you are allowing players to differentiate themselves on the basis of smart mechanical play. What's the balance point for simple fighters vs. complex casters? Is it average caster play? Is it optimal caster play? If a simple fighter performs as well as a caster played optimally than the players of casters feel as if their judicious use of resources was for naught. They don't feel rewarded for the effort they put it. If you balance on average ability to play the game smart players will inevitably drift towards playing casters and end up having a stronger impact on the events of the game assuming they care to have an impact on the game. You can't balance classes based on the results of play that exists outside the rules of the game because it's freely available to everyone unless you say something along the lines of 'Only fighters can stunt. If Clerics try something outside the bounds of the rules they automatically fail'. I'm sure that would go over well.

• 
  
  As I mentioned, I think this doesn't have to be an issue, because the two types of players have different goals. The guy playing a tactically simple character wants to see immediate, obvious results (I.e. big damage numbers), while the more tactical player wants to see greater tactical advantage (which can mean organizing the terrain, crippling or distracting enemies, etc.) So Jim the Tactician will be tripping, grappling, pushing people around the battlefield, and won't care that Bob the Oaf is doing an extra d6 damage per round with his vanilla melee strikes.
  
  

  Caster types have too much breadth. The ability to be effective in both the tactical and operational arenas means that martial types can only shine when casters are played poorly or the DM specifically invalidates casters through spell resistance, anti-magic fields, extremely strong saves, etc. If fighters lack tools to meaningfully exert dramatic change on the operational level than wizards should have to say "go get 'em" to fighters when combat breaks out. Admittedly this is better in AD&D where spell slots are far more limited than 3e/PF. Still it leaves the feeling that fighters are only there for when casters don't feel like being awesome. This applies just as much to thieves/rogues in the operational environment.

  
  You're trying to balance apples to oranges here - it would be no fun at all to divide the classes so that fighters are the only ones playing a tactical game and wizards an operational one.
  
  This is an especially weird assumption given that almost all fantasy fiction focuses primarily on the mundane aspects of operational planning; spell casters tend to be more of a deus ex machina. Gandalf can't just teleport Frodo into Mt. Doom; you need months of travel and armies moving around. In D&D, I think 4e rituals were a nice touch here. Major operational magic shouldn't just require a high-level spell slot; the difficulty should be in gathering the materials and meeting the criteria to make it happen.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It has everything to do with the Fighter class. Traditionally, best armor, best attacks, best HP, good saves.

Paladin: Same Armor, Same Attacks, Same HP, Better Saves, +Self Healing, +Immunities, +Other Magic, +Smite.

What does the Fighter bring that the Paladin doesn't?

Recall that we're talking about "I, the player, came up with a cool idea, and the DM let me roll for it." There's nothing about cool ideas that mandates that the players coming up with them be playing Fighters.

Ergo, Fighters are not absolved of being mechanically interesting in their own right.