D&D 5E Improving the Fighter's Stickiness

[gyor]

I bet they come up with a dedicated fighter archetype for stickiness/defenderness.

And if you don't like characters being sticky, you must hate the Paladin and spells like compell duel, and the Oath of the Ancients which gets spells and a Channel Divinity that stops and decreases movement, very 4e defender feel.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's fine. In that case, this may not be thread for you.

No, it's a thread for the house rules forum, not the 5E forurm.

Stances are entirely martial.

In your mind. In my mind, they are supernatural abilities, just like Second Wind.

Not for those who want sticky fighters. I get that isn't you, and that's fine, but it's certainly something that more than a few players are interested in. But anyway, if you have any constructive ideas, I would love to hear them.

That was my constructive idea. People should not necessarily be swayed into thinking that sticky fighters is the way that the game should be played. I'm personally glad that the 5E designers dialed it back.

If we only have "Yeah, yeah, good answer" here on the forums, then we would be playing Family Feud where people lie and say that subpar answers are good answers.

I presented a counter answer to your perceived problem and rational reasons for it. It gives a dissenting voice for people to read and then consider the subject of a sticky fighter and where the idea for it comes from. That way, DMs can decide whether to jump on the bandwagon in their game, and/or understand the combat implications.

Sticky fighters is the lazy way to resolve the issue of getting the fighter to be attacked more and other PCs to be attacked less. Players should work for that goal. It also takes monster decision making out of the hands of the DM. If that is what a given DM wants, go for it. I just presented a counter view.

Enjoy your houserule and game on!

PS. Got rep for that post btw. Wouldn't have happened if I hadn't of posted it.

 

[Rune]

I think that the concept of a sticky fighter comes straight out of WoW.

That's just not the case.

Back in the (pre-3e) day, the only way to disengage from melee, once established (other than dropping your foe), was to withdraw backwards. It may not stop enemies from rushing past, but that's still pretty sticky, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Rune]

That was my constructive idea. People should not necessarily be swayed into thinking that sticky fighters is the way that the game should be played. I'm personally glad that the 5E designers dialed it back.

If we only have "Yeah, yeah, good answer" here on the forums, then we would be playing Family Feud where people lie and say that subpar answers are good answers.

I presented a counter answer to your perceived problem and rational reasons for it. It gives a dissenting voice for people to read and then consider the subject of a sticky fighter and where the idea for it comes from. That way, DMs can decide whether to jump on the bandwagon in their game, and/or understand the combat implications.

Sticky fighters is the lazy way to resolve the issue of getting the fighter to be attacked more and other PCs to be attacked less. Players should work for that goal. It also takes monster decision making out of the hands of the DM. If that is what a given DM wants, go for it. I just presented a counter view.

None of this is constructive. Saying "don't do this; here's why" is always deconstructive. By definition. It could lead to something constructive, but hasn't yet.

Here's how that (that is, something actually constructive) would look:

"While I don't personally see the need for it, this is how I would do it..."

 

[KarinsDad]

None of this is constructive. Saying "don't do this; here's why" is always deconstructive. By definition. It could lead to something constructive, but hasn't yet.

Here's how that (that is, something actually constructive) would look:

"While I don't personally see the need for it, this is how I would do it..."

It leads to something constructive if just a few people think about what is being proposed instead of just jumping on the bandwagon.

Personally, I think that constructive results stem from debate, not from lemming agreement.


The actual problem to be resolved is "how to protect the other PCs". It's not "how to make the fighter stickier".

There are a lot of solutions in game to handle the former one without handling the latter one. A sticky fighter is one mechanical solution to the former issue that was introduced into computer games and RPGs. It's not the only solution, nor is it a good or logical one since it takes decision making control away from the DM and it's illogical for one fighter to be sticky against multiple foes.

It's a bandaid.

 

[Rune]

It leads to something constructive if just a few people think about what is being proposed instead of just jumping on the bandwagon.

Personally, I think that constructive results stem from debate, not from lemming agreement.


The actual problem to be resolved is "how to protect the other PCs". It's not "how to make the fighter stickier".

There are a lot of solutions in game to handle the former one without handling the latter one. A sticky fighter is one mechanical solution to the former issue that was introduced into computer games and RPGs. It's not the only solution, nor is it a good or logical one since it takes decision making control away from the DM and it's illogical for one fighter to be sticky against multiple foes.

It's a bandaid.

Your position has been made known. Now that we're past that, do you, personally, actually have anything constructive to add to the topic at hand (which, according to the OP, actually is how to make the fighter stickier)?

 

[the Jester]

It leads to something constructive if just a few people think about what is being proposed instead of just jumping on the bandwagon.

Personally, I think that constructive results stem from debate, not from lemming agreement.

Dude, really? Now you're just being insulting.

The actual problem to be resolved is "how to protect the other PCs". It's not "how to make the fighter stickier".

Reread the thread title. If you want a thread on how to protect the other PCs, go ahead and start one, but in this thread, the topic is, indeed, how to make the fighter stickier- again, look at the title of the thread.

There are a lot of solutions in game to handle the former one without handling the latter one. A sticky fighter is one mechanical solution to the former issue that was introduced into computer games and RPGs. It's not the only solution, nor is it a good or logical one since it takes decision making control away from the DM and it's illogical for one fighter to be sticky against multiple foes.

It's a bandaid.

Thank you for offering your opinion (twice, now), but at this point, given that the thread is about improving stickiness of the fighter, you're just threadcrapping.

 

[jgsugden]

To me, it looks like they INTENTIONALLY removed the sticky fighter concept in 5E. They give it back in limited ways, but they appear to have gone out of their way to promote mobility and dynamic combats rather than lockdowns.

To that end, I doubt you'll get a 5E official option that gives fighters multiple OAs.

I thoroughly suggest playing the game for a few months before trying to 'fix' it. There are a lot of ways in which 5E is different than 4E, and even though you may have enjoyed certain aspects of 4E that have been left behind, you may find that there are some real nice advantages to the way the new system works.

... and we really need a 5E House Rule forum...

 

[KarinsDad]

That's just not the case.

Back in the (pre-3e) day, the only way to disengage from melee, once established (other than dropping your foe), was to withdraw backwards. It may not stop enemies from rushing past, but that's still pretty sticky, as far as I'm concerned.

Not quite 100% accurate. In 1E, PCs could only react to foes in front of them. So, no dex bonuses against foes behind them, a shield bonus against 3 foes max, and no attacking a foe from behind him from running away.

And I agree, nothing stopped PCs from just moving past the front ranks if they were not engaged in melee.


So yes, every PC was this sticky in earlier editions. Now, none of them are quite that sticky. Claiming that fighters should be and other PCs should not does not match the 1E or 2E rules either. The combat rules applied to everyone (which is why I argue for less specialized rules like this house rule and more generic everyone can use them rules). Virtually none of 5E matches 1E or 2E rules completely anyway. So, a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

So yes, an engaged foe was often a bit stickier in 1E/2E, but in some circumstances, he could be less sticky. An unengaged foe, not so much. And this was a trait for all PCs, not just for fighters.

 

[Rune]

Back on topic, I wonder how changing the disengage action so that you can only retreat backwards would affect the way things play.