I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[Mark CMG]

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.

I see where you're going but I think the question is whether the (mechanically) simple fighter can be run by someone who simply wants to perform tactically in a narrative manner (even beyond just swinging to hit and rolling damage) and have the DM deal with it through Ability Checks and Opposed Rolls (beyond to hit rolls and damage rolls) while the complex fighter has all of the maneuvers spelled out as powers and feats and whatnot? And for these two same-level fighters be equal in effectiveness?

 

[Vikingkingq]

I see where you're going but I think the question is whether the (mechanically) simple fighter can be run by someone who simply wants to perform tactically in a narrative manner (even beyond just swinging to hit and rolling damage) and have the DM deal with it through Ability Checks and Opposed Rolls (beyond to hit rolls and damage rolls) while the complex fighter has all of the maneuvers spelled out as powers and feats and whatnot? And for these two same-level fighters be equal in effectiveness?

Sure. A set of basic Maneuvers (along with rules for the Improvise Maneuver) would be right there in the book for the DM to look up, all the mechanically simple fighter would have to do is divide their damage by 1/2 when they wanted to perform tactically.

As for equal effectiveness, it would depend on A. how one calculates the numbers so that a player doing full damage every round equals 1/2 full damage plus effect, and B. the imagination of both players.

 

[Mark CMG]

Sure. A set of basic Maneuvers (along with rules for the Improvise Maneuver) would be right there in the book for the DM to look up, all the mechanically simple fighter would have to do is divide their damage by 1/2 when they wanted to perform tactically.

I'm not sure I get the idea behind doing half damage (or any damage) if a simple fighter just wanted to trip someone (for example, or knock someone down, or tie up someone's weapon arm) instead of swing to hit. Nor why it would be spelled out in that manner for a complex fighter to do so. Perhaps the system you envision is more akin to something where the complex fighter is envisioned first and the simple fighter has the details stripped for the player but still requires the DM to use it all behind the scenes?

As for equal effectiveness, it would depend on A. how one calculates the numbers so that a player doing full damage every round equals 1/2 full damage plus effect, and B. the imagination of both players.

What of, for example, the same player under two different DMs, one who wants to have only simple classes, the fighter in this case, for the sake of faster play with less focus on combat and in a second game with a DM who wishes the game to focus on combat almost exclusively?

 

[Vikingkingq]

I'm not sure I get the idea behind doing half damage (or any damage) if a simple fighter just wanted to trip someone (for example, or knock someone down, or tie up someone's weapon arm) instead of swing to hit. Nor why it would be spelled out in that manner for a complex fighter to do so. Perhaps the system you envision is more akin to something where the complex fighter is envisioned first and the simple fighter has the details stripped for the player but still requires the DM to use it all behind the scenes?

The original idea was figuring out a way for Fighters to be better at maneuvers than other classes and avoid the 100% tradeoff between maneuvers and damage that often meant maneuvers went unused because doing straight damage ended the combat more quickly and thus were superior to the base maneuver.

It's also a way for the simple and complex fighter to be harmoniously designed together - the simple fighter is free to swing away if that's the gameplay the player prefers, without falling behind the tactical fighter because the simple fighter is doing more consistent damage.

What of, for example, the same player under two different DMs, one who wants to have only simple classes, the fighter in this case, for the sake of faster play with less focus on combat and in a second game with a DM who wishes the game to focus on combat almost exclusively?

Well, this gets to my fears about the "simplicity" factor and DM fiat - unless each class has a simple and complex option, I worry about the "Tome of Battle" phenomenon, where complex Wizards and Clerics and Druids are taken as par for the course, but the Fighter depends on permission to be complex.

Bottom line, I'd want equal treatment across classes.

 

[Mark CMG]

The original idea was figuring out a way for Fighters to be better at maneuvers than other classes and avoid the 100% tradeoff between maneuvers and damage that often meant maneuvers went unused because doing straight damage ended the combat more quickly and thus were superior to the base maneuver.

It's also a way for the simple and complex fighter to be harmoniously designed together - the simple fighter is free to swing away if that's the gameplay the player prefers, without falling behind the tactical fighter because the simple fighter is doing more consistent damage.

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.

Well, this gets to my fears about the "simplicity" factor and DM fiat - unless each class has a simple and complex option, I worry about the "Tome of Battle" phenomenon, where complex Wizards and Clerics and Druids are taken as par for the course, but the Fighter depends on permission to be complex.

Bottom line, I'd want equal treatment across classes.

I agree that if this is going to work for 5E then all of the classes will need to have simple and complex variations as well as each to be able to be in the same group with its counterparts. Otherwise, what's the real point of bothering to make a new edition in the first place? One could just play the edition that already exists with the closest or best combination of simple or complex classes. For 5E to really work as a big tent edition, it cannot simple be a use-these-modules-to-emulate-(this or that)-edition. It needs to be an edition that allows for folks to emulate various editions and various complexities of classes at the same table in the same game.

 

[Vikingkingq]

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.

You'd think so, but honestly, it hasn't worked that way in the past. As a Fighter, you're giving up a lot of damage (especially when you figure in iterative attacks and/or powers) to do a maneuver for the chance of someone else doing more damage. And at least in the past, the penalties involved in doing so made it really not a good idea unless you took a heavy feat tax to be good at one particular tactic that you spammed over-and-over again.

The reason I like both is that it's something active that makes the Fighter play differently than other classes, even other martial classes. Potentially, you could design the system so that the maneuver is a separate roll from the attack that you roll at the same time, so the fighter's throwing more dice than other classes, which would be a further tactile difference.

I agree that if this is going to work for 5E then all of the classes will need to have simple and complex variations as well as each to be able to be in the same group with its counterparts. Otherwise, what's the real point of bothering to make a new edition in the first place? One could just play the edition that already exists with the closest or best combination of simple or complex classes. For 5E to really work as a big tent edition, it cannot simple be a use-these-modules-to-emulate-(this or that)-edition. It needs to be an edition that allows for folks to emulate various editions and various complexities of classes at the same table in the same game.

Agreed.

 

[Kunimatyu]

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.

 

[Mark CMG]

You'd think so, but honestly, it hasn't worked that way in the past. As a Fighter, you're giving up a lot of damage (especially when you figure in iterative attacks and/or powers) to do a maneuver for the chance of someone else doing more damage. And at least in the past, the penalties involved in doing so made it really not a good idea unless you took a heavy feat tax to be good at one particular tactic that you spammed over-and-over again.

The reason I like both is that it's something active that makes the Fighter play differently than other classes, even other martial classes. Potentially, you could design the system so that the maneuver is a separate roll from the attack that you roll at the same time, so the fighter's throwing more dice than other classes, which would be a further tactile difference.

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

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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 don't know if PvP is relevant, but let's be honest: If a simple Fighter and the complex Fighter are really identical in effectiveness, wouldn't the complex Fighter player feel stupid for playing a such complex character?

I think they may be equal on some kind of very "average" level. E.g. if you only count, say, damage per 6 seconds averaged over 3 combats or whatever. But if you lose close, you'd see that Complex Fighter managed to avoid a few attacks the Simple FIghter simply took by out-maneuvering a foe or simply killing him before Simple Fighter could possibly do it, simply because Complex Fighter used special resources at the right moment to put him out ahead.

Maybe that's still overall somewhat balanced. But I think if a smart player using the complex fighter cannot come out ahead of any player with the simple fighter, the complex fighter is a subpar choice. The complex fighter has a bigger chance to screw up than the simple fighter, but he also needs a bigger chance to outperform. And this "chance" cannot be based on luck, but based on skill.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't know if PvP is relevant, but let's be honest: If a simple Fighter and the complex Fighter are really identical in effectiveness, wouldn't the complex Fighter player feel stupid for playing a such complex character?

I think they may be equal on some kind of very "average" level. E.g. if you only count, say, damage per 6 seconds averaged over 3 combats or whatever. But if you lose close, you'd see that Complex Fighter managed to avoid a few attacks the Simple FIghter simply took by out-maneuvering a foe or simply killing him before Simple Fighter could possibly do it, simply because Complex Fighter used special resources at the right moment to put him out ahead.

Maybe that's still overall somewhat balanced. But I think if a smart player using the complex fighter cannot come out ahead of any player with the simple fighter, the complex fighter is a subpar choice. The complex fighter has a bigger chance to screw up than the simple fighter, but he also needs a bigger chance to outperform. And this "chance" cannot be based on luck, but based on skill.

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?