I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[BobTheNob]

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 dont find myself agreeing with this position. I have players of varying level of desire in terms of how much commitment to character mechanics they want to take, but none of them would want an option that is "simply worse".

My players just pick what suits there play style. This is where I have a problem with this position. Complexity has nothing to do with potency, its all about the experience the player desires. I dont want to say to my player "Look, I know you want to play the simple character, but understand, simple fighters are just meant to pack less oomph".

I think the more complex model will be more powerful simply by virtue of synergies and adaptability, but it doesnt mean I believe it should be that way. When you design, its about setting objectives and I think a "complex fighters should be better than simple fighters" objective is just not a good one.

 

[P1NBACK]

One time I played a Fighter and I did way more than just swing my sword.

And, I didn't need any fancy powers on my character sheet to do it that way.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Okay, guys. Riddle me this, then. My idea of a simple fighter, without modules, would run something on the order of . . .

Player: I see by the way you sketched out the tavern that I am off to one side of a long table and my enemy is just on the far side. There's been a lot of drinking and spilling all night. Can I rugby slide under the table, grab his leg to stop me on the other side, then stab up into the small of his back with my dagger?

DM: Sure. Roll a Dex check to make sure the slide goes smoothly, then an opposed Dex check to see if he gets out of the way or not. If both of those are successful, you can roll to hit but at a minus for being down on the ground.

Does that jibe with your own ideas of a simple fighter and how such a scenario would be quickly adjudicated?

I'd think that EITHER fighter could try this. So could a rogue, or a wizard, for that matter, because the only mechanics you're using are dex checks/contests and a single attack roll.

The only difference between the two fighters here is that the "simple" fighter has a higher bonus to hit and damage, so he'll be more likely to succeed in stabbing the enemy. The complex fighter MIGHT have some kind of "tumble-strike" maneuver that would let him make this attack without the Dex checks, but far more likely he'd just be trying it with a slightly lower attack/damage bonus.

Meanwhile, both fighters could also try the same thing in a game with the tactics module, but they'd have to worry a bit more about distances on the grid, tumble speed, facing, and that kind of stuff, so it would take longer to adjudicate.

Honestly, the most important facet of tactics like this probably wouldn't be class at all, but rather background - if you've got training in acrobatics, or tumbling, or brawling, you'll have a much better chance of succeeding here.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Okay, guys. Riddle me this, then. My idea of a simple fighter, without modules, would run something on the order of . . .

Player: I see by the way you sketched out the tavern that I am off to one side of a long table and my enemy is just on the far side. There's been a lot of drinking and spilling all night. Can I rugby slide under the table, grab his leg to stop me on the other side, then stab up into the small of his back with my dagger?

DM: Sure. Roll a Dex check to make sure the slide goes smoothly, then an opposed Dex check to see if he gets out of the way or not. If both of those are successful, you can roll to hit but at a minus for being down on the ground.

Does that jibe with your own ideas of a simple fighter and how such a scenario would be quickly adjudicated?

More or less, yes, although I would prefer to avoid opposed Dex checks.

Here's how I hope it would also go:

DM: "In the tavern, you are off to one side of a long table and your enemy is just on the far side. There's been a lot of drinking and spilling all night, so the floor's kind of slippery."
Player (Simple Fighter): "I move over the table and attack." (Rolls to hit and damage).

DM: "In the tavern, you are off to one side of a long table and your enemy is just on the far side. There's been a lot of drinking and spilling all night, so the floor's kind of slippery."
Player (Complex Fighter): "Ok, I need to get around that table. I'll use Slide Attack to go under the table...which (checks sheet) gives me Advantage."
DM: "Cool. Because of the slippery floor, you get another +1 to hit."
Player: (Rolls for attack and maneuver) "Sweet. Ok, [Rogue Player] now that I'm on the other side, I'll Grapple him so that you can Sneak Attack. [Wizard Player] - if that other guy gets in your face, I can Bull Rush him off you."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

One time I played a Fighter and I did way more than just swing my sword.

And, I didn't need any fancy powers on my character sheet to do it that way.

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.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'd think that EITHER fighter could try this. So could a rogue, or a wizard, for that matter, because the only mechanics you're using are dex checks/contests and a single attack roll.

Sure, that's the point of simple classes and simple adjudication.

The only difference between the two fighters here is that the "simple" fighter has a higher bonus to hit and damage,(. . .)

I don't see why that has to be the case.

Honestly, the most important facet of tactics like this probably wouldn't be class at all, but rather background - if you've got training in acrobatics, or tumbling, or brawling, you'll have a much better chance of succeeding here.

Well, not more important to the simple or the complex fighter exclusively, so let's leave that aside but point taken.

 

[Mark CMG]

More or less, yes, although I would prefer to avoid opposed Dex checks.

I don't see why. Any particular reason why this simple mechanic needs to be discarded?

Here's how I hope it would also go:

DM: "In the tavern, you are off to one side of a long table and your enemy is just on the far side. There's been a lot of drinking and spilling all night, so the floor's kind of slippery."
Player (Simple Fighter): "I move over the table and attack." (Rolls to hit and damage)

There's no need to force simplicity by limiting the narrative options.

DM: "In the tavern, you are off to one side of a long table and your enemy is just on the far side. There's been a lot of drinking and spilling all night, so the floor's kind of slippery."
Player (Complex Fighter): "Ok, I need to get around that table. I'll use Slide Attack to go under the table...which (checks sheet) gives me Advantage."
DM: "Cool. Because of the slippery floor, you get another +1 to hit."
Player: (Rolls for attack and maneuver) "Sweet. Ok, [Rogue Player] now that I'm on the other side, I'll Grapple him so that you can Sneak Attack. [Wizard Player] - if that other guy gets in your face, I can Bull Rush him off you."

There's no reason why the two cannot do the same thing and be handled different. The point isn't to limit options and thereby come up with simple and complex variations on the same class, the point is to include ways to adjudicate each, allowing for the simple classes to be swiftly adjudicated after the player suggests a narrative way to accomplish some task and for the complex character to be able to do the same thing but have the mechanics more intricate, more transparent, and more in the hands of the player.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I'd think that EITHER fighter could try this. So could a rogue, or a wizard, for that matter, because the only mechanics you're using are dex checks/contests and a single attack roll.

Either Fighter could try this, since Improvise Action would be common to both. The difference between them and a non-fighter would be the lack of penalties (no Disadvantage, for example) and getting to do damage as well.

The only difference between the two fighters here is that the "simple" fighter has a higher bonus to hit and damage, so he'll be more likely to succeed in stabbing the enemy. The complex fighter MIGHT have some kind of "tumble-strike" maneuver that would let him make this attack without the Dex checks, but far more likely he'd just be trying it with a slightly lower attack/damage bonus.

Um...no. Why should the simple fighter have a higher bonus to hit and damage than the complex fighter? They should be equal.

Honestly, the most important facet of tactics like this probably wouldn't be class at all, but rather background - if you've got training in acrobatics, or tumbling, or brawling, you'll have a much better chance of succeeding here.

Background should help, but it should be a marginal factor - otherwise, you're basically stripping the Fighter of its uniqueness.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I don't see why. Any particular reason why this simple mechanic needs to be discarded?

I think that opposed checks slow gameplay down and take success or failure out of the hands of the player, it also introduces needless divergence from the otherwise standard resolution mechanism of rolling against a fixed target number.

There's no need to force simplicity by limiting the narrative options.

There's no reason why the two cannot do the same thing and be handled different. The point isn't to limit options and thereby come up with simple and complex variations on the same class, the point is to include ways to adjudicate each, allowing for the simple classes to be swiftly adjudicated after the player suggests a narrative way to accomplish some task and for the complex character to be able to do the same thing but have the mechanics more intricate, more transparent, and more in the hands of the player.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. What I was getting at was that the simple fighter should be viable and potent even in the hands of someone who's not good at narrative roleplaying - the classic newcomer to RPGs who sits down at the table and just wants to do one thing - as well as in the hands of a practiced roleplayer. And both of those should be equal to a player who likes having a set of tools to work from as well as improvisation.

My first scenario wasn't that the simple fighter couldn't do anything else, but that that specific player just wanted to swing at things - and was still holding their end up for the party.

 

[billd91]

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.

That's true only if we presuppose there must be something the fighter can do that nobody else can do. That notion, however, may be false.