I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This gets into a key problem area of design theory beyond the core. Does the more you add raise the power level of the game? One of the problems in almost every supplement for any edition has always been potential power creep. It might sell books but it quickly ruins a game as the arms race is never sustainable which brings the edition cycle to a close more quickly. What you are suggesting, by saying the complex fighter of any given level should better than the simple fighter, is bringing that power creep forward from a game supplement problem into the core game, whether in modules or not. Of course perfect balance across the entire array of classes, both simple and complex, is not likely an achievable goal, but shouldn't it be something that is attempted at least for the sake of avoiding power creep and some classes outshining others?

Of course it's a problem and it will probably cause the issues you mention. In the long run, I'd expect any given group will not have the Simple and Complex Fighter running together.

A question may be how big will the difference be - if the complex fighter still has two hit dice left while the simple fighter is already spend out for the day, maybe that's not a big deal. (But will this difference be satisfying for the complex fighter?)

But if the complex fighter combined with smart play cannot outperform a simple fighter with smart play, then there is no point to playing the complex fighter. Doing so is like intentionally playing with a handicap. Some people can probably pull that off in the long run, but I don't see myself as one of them.

4E accepted that this problem would probably occur and gave everyone AEDU. But apparantly, that's an unpopular move and Essentials already tried to loosen this. The next edition seems to go away even further from that. Maybe D&D Next fans will have to accept that they can't have everything and that good balance is not part of the deal? Or would they rather have the complex fighter an unpopular choice because it's a lot of ado over nothing?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Addendum: One thing to consider - once you add class complexity to the game and there is a difference between "smart" play and "average" play or however we call it, the power spiral you mention, Mark, seems inevitable. That is what happened in 3E - people learned how to optimize their characters with the best items, spells, multi-classing and feats, and adventure and monster manual writers started to adapt. Paizo adventure paths are some of the deadliest out there. And before 3E and all that mechanical fine-tuning and min/maxing, we have seen similar things happen. See the "evolution" of trap and trap-infested dungeons and stuff like 10 ft poles used by players...

So maybe this problem is entirely independent of simple vs. complex fighter. It's an inherent risk of complexity.

 

[Mark CMG]

In the long run, I'd expect any given group will not have the Simple and Complex Fighter running together.

I'm not sure there have been many opportunities to see if this would or would not happen. Certainly when bringing a new player aboard this is likely to happen. Some examples of groups above and elsewhere suggest there is a variance of players in any given group such that some would choose simple or complex over the other no matter what others might choose in the group if given the choice. This is certainly seen directly in some editions where certain classes were clearly more complex to play than others. Naw, I've got to expect the opposite and would suggest it more likely that groups will consist of both if the chance to do so exists.

A question may be how big will the difference be - if the complex fighter still has two hit dice left while the simple fighter is already spend out for the day, maybe that's not a big deal. (But will this difference be satisfying for the complex fighter?)

But if the complex fighter combined with smart play cannot outperform a simple fighter with smart play, then there is no point to playing the complex fighter. Doing so is like intentionally playing with a handicap. Some people can probably pull that off in the long run, but I don't see myself as one of them.

So, despite the premise being that some folks simply prefer a more complex game for its own sake, you suggest that if not given a clear advantage by playing the more complex character class the simple class would be chosen by nearly everyone? That seems like a different discussion than I've been engaging in thus far and more to do with the type of player rather than design theory regarding class balance.

4E accepted that this problem would probably occur and gave everyone AEDU. But apparantly, that's an unpopular move and Essentials already tried to loosen this. The next edition seems to go away even further from that. Maybe D&D Next fans will have to accept that they can't have everything and that good balance is not part of the deal? Or would they rather have the complex fighter an unpopular choice because it's a lot of ado over nothing?

I think I would design in the other direction and suggest that players should mot always be looking for an advantage over the others in their group, strive for balance across the board, and design with those who like complexity for complexity's sake in mind.

Addendum: One thing to consider - once you add class complexity to the game and there is a difference between "smart" play and "average" play or however we call it, the power spiral you mention, Mark, seems inevitable. That is what happened in 3E - people learned how to optimize their characters with the best items, spells, multi-classing and feats, and adventure and monster manual writers started to adapt. Paizo adventure paths are some of the deadliest out there.

So maybe this problem is entirely independent of simple vs. complex fighter. It's an inherent risk of complexity.

I do not disagree that there could always be players who are far better than other players in the same group, and that there always is a spectrum of player skill at any table, as no two players are ever exactly of identical skill level. But I don't think bringing power creep forward into the core and abandoning any attempt at class balance is a good answer to a problem for which the designers have no control. Recognizing a problem for which there is likely no solution is no reason to throw up ones hands over a problem that can be affected through smart design.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, despite the premise being that some folks simply prefer a more complex game for its own sake, you suggest that if not given a clear advantage by playing the more complex character class the simple class would be chosen by nearly everyone? That seems like a different discussion than I've been engaging in thus far and more to do with the type of player rather than design theory regarding class balance.

Not a clear advantage. Just a promise: "If you really do the right stuff, you will be better t han the simple fighter". That's what I mean with "smart play". If you generally find the right stuff to do, know when to use your resources and when not to, know which combat maneuver is the right to perform or when to just make a simple attack, then you will be better than if you don't, and you will be better as the simple fighter that doesn't get these choices. If you only sometimes get it right - well, maybe you'll be as good as the simple fighter.

I think I would design in the other direction and suggest that players should mot always be looking for an advantage over the others in their group, strive for balance across the board, and design with those who like complexity for complexity's sake in mind.

This isn'T about d*ck measuring, e.g. my fighter deals more damage than yours and thus I am the superior human being or whatever.
It isn't about having an advantage over other players. It's about picking the best tool for the job. Why use a complex tool with a higher chance to screw up then use the tool that guarantees success? Only if you also have a chance to be better it can seem like a fair trade-off. But the end result will likely be that you will more make the right choices then not and come out ahead compared to you playing the simple version.

I do not disagree that there could always be players who are far better than other players in the same group, and that there always is a spectrum of player skill at any table, as no two players are ever exactly of identical skill level. But I don't think bringing power creep forward into the core and abandoning any attempt at class balance is a good answer to a problem for which the designers have no control. Recognizing a problem for which there is likely no solution is no reason to throw up ones hands over a problem that can be affected through smart design.

And I do not think you can avoid this power creep entirely. Once the game becomes sufficiently complex to allow meaningful choices that make success or failure, you wil lstart seeing some people over time gaining enough mastery that they will take the better choice, and you will have to think about how to still make them feel challenged, because otherwise the game can become boring to DM and players alike.

 

[Bluenose]

We need a simple Fighter.

We also need that Fighter to hit like a truck. The class needs to be clearly and obviously the best at hitting things and killing them. Period.

I'd suggest that the most notable thing this misses is the fighter's ability to survive. Hitting like a truck, ONCE, and then being down and out of the fight doesn't really match well to the higher level fighter from AD&D/BD&D, or for that matter to the 4e version.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, tactically, working as a group, trading off a swing to hit for tripping someone or knocking them down, might increase the chance for someone else to do actual damage, so I'm not convinced that either the simple or complex fighter needs added incentive to perform a narrative or spelled-out maneuver beyond that. So, too, if the fighter (of either complexity) has a better chance to knock someone down (just for example) than any other class, but that increases the chance for three no-fighter classes to finish the opponent off, then it seems to me that it makes up for the others not having the same acumen at such maneuvers or even straight combat.

The problem with this plan is that (with the sole exception of the rogue) as the person who hits hardest, the fighter is the one who should be receiving the setups rather than the one setting up the enemies for the wizard to bash over the head with his staff.

The math and theme are both simple: Wizard trips ogre for fighter to get a good attack on = smart. Fighter trips ogre for wizard to get a good swing at
= why?

 

[Dragoslav]

The math and theme are both simple: Wizard trips ogre for fighter to get a good attack on = smart. Fighter trips ogre for wizard to get a good swing at
= why?

Even better: The fighter trips the ogre. The wizard casts a ranged spell and takes a -2 penalty because the ogre is prone.

 

[Mark CMG]

Not a clear advantage. Just a promise: "If you really do the right stuff, you will be better t han the simple fighter". That's what I mean with "smart play". If you generally find the right stuff to do, know when to use your resources and when not to, know which combat maneuver is the right to perform or when to just make a simple attack, then you will be better than if you don't, and you will be better as the simple fighter that doesn't get these choices. If you only sometimes get it right - well, maybe you'll be as good as the simple fighter.


This isn'T about d*ck measuring, e.g. my fighter deals more damage than yours and thus I am the superior human being or whatever.
It isn't about having an advantage over other players. It's about picking the best tool for the job. Why use a complex tool with a higher chance to screw up then use the tool that guarantees success? Only if you also have a chance to be better it can seem like a fair trade-off. But the end result will likely be that you will more make the right choices then not and come out ahead compared to you playing the simple version.

The trouble with that way of thinking is that it only rewards the best tactician taking the complex fighter if that player is good at the way the designers think is best for their character to be a fighter. Frankly, these guys design games and might have some knowledge of true combat but they are making up powers and feats based on (let's be honest) often cliche maneuvers that are meant to be cinematic and/or epic, larger than life perhaps, but some player trained in real combat could easily feel more comfortable with the simple fighter, the narrative choice, since he isn't boxed into the supposed best tactics as envisioned by the designers. Your plan rewards the person who best does what the designers think they should do, not necessarily the best actual tactician.

And I do not think you can avoid this power creep entirely. Once the game becomes sufficiently complex to allow meaningful choices that make success or failure, you wil lstart seeing some people over time gaining enough mastery that they will take the better choice, and you will have to think about how to still make them feel challenged, because otherwise the game can become boring to DM and players alike.

I don't know if you can avoid it entirely but I do not you can and should stave it off.

 

[Mark CMG]

The problem with this plan is that (with the sole exception of the rogue) as the person who hits hardest, the fighter is the one who should be receiving the setups rather than the one setting up the enemies for the wizard to bash over the head with his staff.

The math and theme are both simple: Wizard trips ogre for fighter to get a good attack on = smart. Fighter trips ogre for wizard to get a good swing at
= why?

That's one theory of tactics. Another would be that when the fighter is the only one who can bring the ogre to his knees with a leg sweep, and the only way anyone else can hit is if the ogre is on his knees, then the fighter does what no one else can so the whole group can hasten the victory.

 

[Vikingkingq]

That all goes toward making the simple fighter too complex, IMO.

How? All the simple fighter has to do is play as they do right now; they do a standard attack or say "I want to do X" and the DM tells them what effect a successful roll would have.

Neonchameleon - first, the Fighter gets the setup hits too while the target is prone or disarmed or dazed or whatever (and keep in mind their Trip/Disarm/etc. now causes damage in addition); second, it sets up the Rogue to do much more damage and greatly increases the likelihood that the Cleric or Ranger or Paladin or Barbarian gets their hits in as well.

EDIT: the Fighter could also be setting themselves up to be more effective. For example, giving themselves Advantage before they attempt the big double-handed Power Attack would make it much more likely to connect despite giving up to-hit bonuses.

Dragoslav - Obviously, Trip is just one example. Let's say instead it's Sunder on a heavily-armored enemy, or Grapple against an enemy with high Dex.