I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[Salamandyr]

I would prefer that they keep the mechanical special abilities out of the class and put it in the combat chapter. If you give the fighter, or gladiator, say, a disarm special ability, then anyone who doesn't have that special ability can't disarm.

This is the problem with mechanics heavy systems; they cut off options. Put the fancy options, not in the class so anyone can make use of them. Give the fighter mechanics to be better at those options, or able to do them with greater likelyhood of success.

 

[Deadboy]

I would prefer that they keep the mechanical special abilities out of the class and put it in the combat chapter. If you give the fighter, or gladiator, say, a disarm special ability, then anyone who doesn't have that special ability can't disarm.

This is the problem with mechanics heavy systems; they cut off options. Put the fancy options, not in the class so anyone can make use of them. Give the fighter mechanics to be better at those options, or able to do them with greater likelyhood of success.

The key to that, is understanding when codifying an ability with a power, feat or other game mechanic actually cuts off options (it often did in older editions) and when it exists as a supplement to options (like in 4e).

The presence of powers that, say, knock opponents prone does NOT preclude a character from trying to trip an opponent. The power gives one guaranteed success along with damage; trying it without the power might likely be an opposed roll (attack roll vs. Acrobatics skill) and do no damage, as per DMG page 42.

The actual problem with powers (at least as presented in 4e) is that it does not actually preclude options, but the fact that it creates the perception that powers are all you can do... It's a perceptual problem, not necessarily a mechanical one.

I think the key to design in Next will be to keep the suite of powers small and make sure that the equivalent to DMG page 42 is front and center in the PHB. The mechanics need to lend themselves giving fighters some cool powers and effects they can do without making the player feel like that's all they can do or that using a power/maneuver/whatever is always better than improvising an action.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The presence of powers that, say, knock opponents prone does NOT preclude a character from trying to trip an opponent. The power gives one guaranteed success along with damage; trying it without the power might likely be an opposed roll (attack roll vs. Acrobatics skill) and do no damage, as per DMG page 42.

It looks like 5e will actually do a decent job of this by cordoning off those trips/disarms/etc into a tactics module. If I want to make a disarm attempt using the current rules, the "how to play" guide makes it fairly clear that it'll just be a Strength or Dex contest, with advantage/disadvantage doled out at the DM's discretion. (If I were DMing, it would depend on the description used.. a fighter trying to smash an axe out of his enemy's hand would be Str vs. Str with the defender having advantage, for example, while a swashbuckler attempting some fancy disarm maneuver against a distracted foe might be Dex vs Dex with no advantage.) This is cool because not having a list of discrete maneuvers (Bull Rush, Disarm, etc) leads to more creative combat tactics from players.

Using the tactics module, of course, these things would be a bit more spelled out for the groups who prefer nitty-gritty battlegrid combat. (I honestly think either would be fun.)

But as Deadboy says, neither precludes fighter maneuvers that gives those fighters an extra-cool way to achieve the same effect, any more than the Sneak Attack class ability prevents non-rogues from using clever surprise tactics.

A sample maneuver:
Disarming Blow: The fighter makes a melee attack; if he succeeds, he can make a disarm attempt with advantage.

This way, nobody's under the impression that a "disarm attempt" is unique to this maneuver, but the fighter still has a cool way to do it better. Moreover, the wording avoids spelling out what a disarm attempt is, so that a group using the light tactical rules can consider it a DM-adjudicated contest and a group using the tactics module can use whatever an official "disarm attempt" is, but with advantage.

 

[BobTheNob]

Well, I have 5 players, and as you say, none of them posts here (or in other RPG forums). We are currently playing 4E.

One player is a fairly new player, so he has actually nothing to say (4E is the only system he knows, and he is still learning it).

The other 4 players are kind of veteran players. One of them started when 3E started. The other 3 players, like me, started with 2E (AD&D).
Across those editions, two of them always played the "bmx bandit" while the other two always played the "angel summoner".

Right now, the ex-"bmx bandit" guys would never ever "revert" to a 3E-system (like D&D Next seems to be right now) unless there are solid mechanincs that will let them play 4E-like martial characters.

The "angel summoners", as you might guess, are quite happy with the return of vancian magic (although they are ok with the insertion of at-will spells in said system). They do not care about what a martial character can or cannot do as they will never play such a character.

I just love the fact that you used Angel summoner and BMX guy.

In response to my own point, Im going to lay this out person by person in my group

Me : I would like a simple fighter. In fact, I would like simple everything. Main driver being that I am primarily a DM and want to move my game away from tactical combat and more into the narrative area, and simplicity is part of that.

Player 1 : "Obsessive Pro. Yoinks out every last benefit he can gain". Would likely be more taken by a reversion to closer to 3e.

Player 2 : "Hyper casual, power hungry". Loves his characters to be dominators in every way, but wont take one second out of his day to figure out how, so is happy to take tips from myself and player 1. Probably happy with simple or complex, as long as he is potent.

Player 3 : "Surprisingly Adaptable" Casual, yet when we played 4e, he played the fighter tank and took to it really well. Would be happy with a more complex system. Not sure what his preference would be though...should ask him.

Player 4 : "Just loves the game" Semi Casual. Not hung up on the rules, but loves the play expereince. Has stated openly to me that he would prefer a super-simple system. (Hes more for pure narrative with no dice rolls!)

Players 5&6 : "My pre-4e fighter players". Simple simple simple. In darksun 2e one played a half giant fighter, the other a Mul fighter. In both cases, fighter go smash. Both would vote for simple fighter in an instant.

So, for my group, overall simplicity is better, but there is some hold-out for complexity. Frankly the idea of a potent, simple fighter with option for expansion of complexity is exactly what we need.

 

[rjdafoe]

I have no problem with the idea of a simple class - in fact I think the single biggest failing of 4e pre-essentials was that it didn't have one. However we had eight years and two editions (3.0 and 3.5) of Fighters Don't Get Good Stuff - this is not acceptable to me. The fighter is probably the single biggest archetype in fantasy fiction and I am not prepared to accept that it should be the weakest as well.

Especially not when the playtest fighter mechanically sucks - it does half of one point more damage per attack than the warpriest once you pair up the weapons and strength. The rest is all illusion.

I've no objection to there being a simple fighter. But I want two conditions to hold.

1. The fighter should be the best there is at what he does
2. There should be simple non-fighters so it's not just "fighters are for idiots".

1 is only marginally true - once you cut through the mechanical sleight of hand the warpriest does almost exactly as much damage, all else being equal. (+4 to damage vs Crusader's Strike, +1 to hit vs +1 AC, and offensive theme vs defensive theme). Not acceptable.


2 is doable. We have a simple spellcaster in 4e - the Elementalist Sorceror who gets a grand total of two attack spells (elemental lance and elemental blast of their chosen element) and occasionally intensifies them. I want to give newbies elementalists at least as much as I want to give them fighters. Give me a spellcaster for starting players.

Sorry but the way you are comparing does nobody any good. You cannot make an informed decision based on what has been shown. Throwing around words that make it sound like fact does not help either.

We do not know. There are too many variables to say one way or the other. IMHO saying otherwise is trying to state these as fact is kind of misrepresenting the rules.

 

[Kavon]

Well, we obviously disagree and that's OK - I see where you are coming from. I think separate classes is the easier route for new players. I'm fine with the concept of a simple class and a complex class, but I want them to have different names. We're really not that far apart if we look at this way:

ridiculous example
Simple Fighter = Fighter
Complex Fighter = Gladiator

Or reverse the names for all I care.

It's a minor point, but I think important for new and casual players.

But wouldn't it be easier to make it clear which actions you'd have to take (or not take) when creating a Fighter to make it simple or complex, than wasting space on two seperate classes that are effectively the same thing?
What if other Fighter options, or a seperate degree of complexity, were to be made.. Would you need to make another 'fighter' class? Or would you just add it onto the existing Fighter class?

I think classes should be somewhat different in what they represent in the world and in the game. If the only difference is complexity, I don't see why they are seperate classes.
Now if there are more differences than complexity, you're back to square one with Fighters only being simple and Gladiators only being complex.

I understand that we simply disagree on this. I just think that my way is more open to the modular approach WotC is taking on D&D Next (which you are of course welcome to also disagree on).

I'd say they'll seperate the 'simple' beginner friendly 'base Fighter' from the complex modules/options given to it in the Player's Handbook - in the sense that the beginning of the class entry would be only the 'beginner' friendly thing, and afterwards there will be all the options for people that want them.

See it sort of like.. The normal/basic/simple class entry you're used to, and on the pages that come after it, there are all these 'Unearthed Arcana' like things for those interested. This is what I'm talking about with having the 'Simple Fighter' and the 'Complex Fighter' being the same class.

 

[Vikingkingq]

But doesn't making the complex/tactical Fighter a separate class run into the problem of the Fighter's definition/raison d'etre? If the Fighter is supposed to be "the best at fighting," someone who "master mundane tactics and weapon skills," then how do we explain the fact that this other class (whether we call it the Gladiator or the Warblade or whatever) far outstrips the Fighter with their mastery of tactics and skills the Fighter doesn't have access to?

We could have a different description for the Fighter that more accurately describes the class - "the Fighter is an ordinary person who's learned how to use weapons slightly better than the average combatant and is familiar with many different kinds of arms and armor" - but that doesn't sound very heroic, does it?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

The actual problem with powers (at least as presented in 4e) is that it does not actually preclude options, but the fact that it creates the perception that powers are all you can do... It's a perceptual problem, not necessarily a mechanical one.

I think the problem with 4e is that there were too many powers and the rules for combat maneuvers were underdeveloped. There was Bull Rush, but no Disarm, no Trip. No rules for characters to do these things outside of their powers, no rules to improve their ability to do these things unless a power covered it, and so forth. You can grab someone to keep them from moving, but you can't wrestle with them; you can't tackle them to the ground or twist their arm or pry their weapon from their cold, dead hands.

When your ruleset for your fantasy powers is so heavily structured, you really do need to have more specific rules for the normal things that everyone can do. Improvisation rules are well and good, and I'm glad 4e has them... but they shouldn't be necessary for basic combat maneuvers in a game as heavily dedicated to combat as any version of D&D, especially a mechanically heavier and more tactically-oriented version of D&D like 4e.

A sample maneuver:
Disarming Blow: The fighter makes a melee attack; if he succeeds, he can make a disarm attempt with advantage.

This is solid. I would like to see things like this for the Fighter, and to a lesser degree for the other melee classes.

 

[Mark CMG]

Should the simple fighter and the complex fighter of the same level be able to stand toe-to-toe or does complexity necessitate additional power and/or restrictions?

 

[Vikingkingq]

Should the simple fighter and the complex fighter of the same level be able to stand toe-to-toe or does complexity necessitate additional power and/or restrictions?

I think there's a way to allow the simple fighter to contribute while allowing greater tactical utility for the complex fighter. Let's say that the simple fighter just did a straight attack for normal damage, but the complex fighter could choose to do 1/2 damage and trip in the same attack. Both could be contributing the same amount to the party, but one's just attacking every round and the other one say Sunders the opponent's armor to set up their Power Attack to be even more effective than normal, or Trips the opponent so the Rogue can get their Sneak Attack off, or Bull Rushes or Grapples the monster that got too close to the squishies.