I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[Mark CMG]

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.

It's no slower than the player rolling and the DM checking a DC rather than a Dex Score for and NPC. It's also still in the hands of the player but it is a floating DC. The DM could even roll first and give the player the number to hit just like he would if he had to set a number or look the number up. It cannot be a fixed number if it is not a static situation, in that the NPC is active and involved. Sorry, I just don't buy the rejection of the mechanic from any angle.

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.

Right, it's the DMs job to make sure the player has the tools, by way of enough information, to allow him to roleplay within the narrative as deeply immersed as the player chooses to be. I think we know that a "simple player" can just swing a sword but we're discussing the "simple fighter" class, not the player per se. Yet, I see where you were going.

 

[Mark CMG]

Anyway, I'l try to check back to this thread soon but will be a bit busy so don't think I have dropped out if there is still something someone wishes to ask or add to this tangent of the discussion. I suppose in this portion we've mostly all stated our positions but there may be more that I am missing so feel free to keep things rolling and thanks for the lively and civil debate!

 

[Kavon]

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.

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.
I'm not sure that "uses heavy armor" or "uses weapons" is something that really makes it a seperate class from all the other ones that do basically the same (and more).

So, other martial classes (or otherwise similar classes) mug the Fighter and leave him in a ditch, or you give the Fighter something to defend itself in that dark alleyway. Seeing as it's D&D we're talking about, I don't see the Fighter class getting scrapped.

Even if we're only talking about 'simple' versions of classes, other similar classes have something that make them not-Fighter. Not even the Thief was ever only the skills guy (I might be wrong, my knowledge about pre-2e isn't hands on), right?
I'd be more interested in seeing a Fighter that is very tough and dangerous without having it be given simply the most HP, the highest attack rating, AC and damage (which isn't interesting - much like leveling up and only getting some HP and maybe an attack boost isn't interesting, more of the same - getting a new class feature is, though).
Instead of 2 more HP compared to the other melee guy, give the Fighter something to shrug off/ignore some damage, somehow. To make the Fighter more dangerous, instead of more baseline damage or attack bonus, give it something to boost its damage or attack. This gives it something more interactive to play with.

Now, of course there will be people that most likely disagree that all of this is necessary. The fact that there are discussions about the issue says that it needs to be supported in some fashion.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Then what, pray tell, does the Fighter bring to the table?

 

[Vikingkingq]

It's no slower than the player rolling and the DM checking a DC rather than a Dex Score for and NPC. It's also still in the hands of the player but it is a floating DC. The DM could even roll first and give the player the number to hit just like he would if he had to set a number or look the number up. It cannot be a fixed number if it is not a static situation, in that the NPC is active and involved. Sorry, I just don't buy the rejection of the mechanic from any angle.

I would argue it is slower. Rolling a dice takes a certain amount of time (although they can be rolled simultaneously), whereas you already know the DC - the extra time especially kicks in after the first attempt, because in rounds 2-on I know the DC I'm trying to hit, versus having to wait for it each round.

And it does remove things from the hands of the player because they could roll above what would otherwise be the target number only to be out-rolled by the DM, which produces the same feeling of disappointment and frustration one gets when you fail to confirm a crit after rolling really well the first time.

I think it could easily be a fixed number, based on the statistic of the thing in question - just as a Rogue is always going to open a lock of DC 16 or less, a Fighter with Strength 18 should be able to out-muscle a creature with Strength 10.

Right, it's the DMs job to make sure the player has the tools, by way of enough information, to allow him to roleplay within the narrative as deeply immersed as the player chooses to be.

Right. A DM also has to allow the player to grow into RPGing/a particular RPG system/their character at their own speed, while ensuring that the player or the group doesn't feel that the player is underperforming because they're not as good at narrative roleplaying yet.

 

[billd91]

Then what, pray tell, does the Fighter bring to the table?

He fights, like he has always done. Maybe he does fight better than anyone else, maybe he has more ways to specialize in it. But ultimately he does things that other character can also do. He just does some of them better. He doesn't need reality altering powers or a unique shtick to be valuable at the table.

 

[Mark CMG]

I would argue it is slower. Rolling a dice takes a certain amount of time (although they can be rolled simultaneously), whereas you already know the DC - the extra time especially kicks in after the first attempt, because in rounds 2-on I know the DC I'm trying to hit, versus having to wait for it each round.

Obviously I don't agree but I won't just repeat myself beyond that. You must be used to games where combats take a long time and a few seconds seems like forever. Really, what I am envisioning in this scenario is a combat that lasts about five minutes or less with low level characters and an equal number of low level opponents. Even in higher level play, we're not looking at more than fifteen or twenty minutes for the bigger combats in any given session.

And it does remove things from the hands of the player because they could roll above what would otherwise be the target number only to be out-rolled by the DM, which produces the same feeling of disappointment and frustration one gets when you fail to confirm a crit after rolling really well the first time.

There is no "otherwise" so there's nothing to compare it to, no set number. We're talking about what it would take to grab onto someone who has their own Dex score and the ability to react. There's no fixed number for that.

I think it could easily be a fixed number, based on the statistic of the thing in question - just as a Rogue is always going to open a lock of DC 16 or less, a Fighter with Strength 18 should be able to out-muscle a creature with Strength 10.

A lock is in most cases a static object with no will of its own and no intention to react, so we'll set that example aside. Now you're suggesting extremes and while I agree that someone with an 18 Str might be able to out-muscle someone with a much lower Str in most cases, we were talking Dex scores regarding one person grabbing another in an attempt to discontinue sliding. Really, let's just leave this one aside too. I suppose I could give you my gut-check adjudication for each extreme case you suggest as a litmus test for judging the one I suggested upthread but you need to understand that in a game that doesn't rely on set rules for each and every situation, what you are doing is the antithesis of that design. You will probably be more comfortable with a ruleset that tells you how to make all DMing calls and it is likely that a 5E with most of the modules will be that game for you. I think they plan to make the entire game more flexible, though, so that someone else won't have to do the same and won't need all of the players to be on board with that far end of the range of games 5E is being designed to handle.

Right. A DM also has to allow the player to grow into RPGing/a particular RPG system/their character at their own speed, while ensuring that the player or the group doesn't feel that the player is underperforming because they're not as good at narrative roleplaying yet.

That's a separate issue beyond design and gets into player expectations and management.

 

[Pickles JG]

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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

 

[Bluenose]

He fights, like he has always done. Maybe he does fight better than anyone else, maybe he has more ways to specialize in it. But ultimately he does things that other character can also do. He just does some of them better. He doesn't need reality altering powers or a unique shtick to be valuable at the table.

Of course for some people "reality altering powers" are required to be better than anything that can be done by mundane skill (else what would be the point of learning them). 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. Whether D&D needs a fighter class is of course open to debate, considering the number appearing in the literature it's apparently meant to get inspiration from.

 

[pogre]

Then what, pray tell, does the Fighter bring to the table?

Chewing gum... except he's out of chewing gum.