Mustrum's Mythical Fighter Techniques

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I figured as much, but wanted to make sure. I know you firmly believe that it is impossible for non-Vancian and Vancian classes to co-exist in a more-or-less balanced state, but that is because you have limited experiences. It is hard for someone who hasn't actually played both 1/2e and 3e to understand how much of a balance impact many of the rules changes had between casters and non-casters, but in 1e, Fighters and Wizards coexisted acceptably well. Not perfect perhaps (some more out-of-combat utility for the Fighter would have gone a long way), but it worked.

Your profile suggests that you have a 3e game. Try a one/two shot in the same universe, with some significant changes:

Spell caster effectiveness changes:
a) Remove bonus spells from Wizards, cap bonus spell slots at 1/level for Clerics.
b) Take consumable item costs from Spell Level*Caster Level to Spell Level*(Minimum Caster Level*10+Caster Level-Minimum Caster Level)
c) Add something between 0.5*Level to 1*Level to all Saves. For NPCs, replaces Level with EL.. However, also subtract 2 from all Saves.

Generic effectiveness changes:
a) Monster offense drastically increased with the addition of STR to damage for monsters. Accordingly, add 50% to Fighter HP and healing received at level 5, increasing to 100% at level 10. Other classes (except Wizards) get a 50% boost at level 10.

Fighter/Melee changes:
a) Monster HP was dramatically inflated by the addition of CON to monster HP. Accordingly, multiply Fighter damage by 1.5 at level 5, 2 at level 10 and 3 at level 15.
b) Remove all pure caster melee self buffs (expect Tenser's, because hey, Tenser's).
c) Add +2 to Fighter to-hits and damage, just in general.
d) Remove iterative attacks from everyone but Fighters.

I still don't really believe that the "old" system was balanced, but I believe that the real balance problems occured at higher levels, which were never that common in D&D (that is true even for D&D 4, that make epic levels core!), and that 3.x did add a lot of stuff that benefited casters. Bonus spells, the way saving throws worked (pre 3E, saving throws may have seemed like an incoherent mess - but the Fighter was actually likely to save against many spells. Even with a good fortitude save, I have lost several Fighters in 3E to save or die effects that targeted fortitude). I believe spell acquisition rules also became a lot easier, and the problematic "game breaker" spells (Teleport, Scry and whatnot) were easier to attain.

But we also have to realize that some old mechanics were also pretty unfun, even if they were technically balanced. Jack99 example of - take damage => lose spell. That may be balanced in that a Wizard cannot rely on his destructive magic to actually work - but it also means you take away one of the cool things the class can do. 3E instead made avoiding this too easy for it to be a genuine balancing mechanic. But, a fair compromise could have been - take damage, you must try again next round, instead of "take an action, lose your precious spell".

I believe one thing 3E often did was trying to make things more "elegant" and computable - stuff like Good Save = 2 + 1/2 Level, BAB = +1/Level or 3/4 Level or 1/2 Level, but never really considered how these values would affect and change gameplay and balance.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I did run 1E quite a lot (and BECMI too, at low levels). It's not the answer to all that Mustrum is trying to cover here. Mainly, the problem with "just go back to the way 1E did it," is that the problem 3E was trying to solve when it busted casters wide open was still a real problem. It's just that in its haste to change wizards from having a range of "early peon" to "late god," the 3E folks got a little too focused on the early end of the scale to the detriment of the upper. Well, that, and they thought that feats and prestige classes were going to square that circle, but then didn't playtest nearly enough on the upper end.

So if "make the wizard stay at peon longer and grudgingly let him climb into god-like," isn't a real answer for fighter issues, it is true that the scaling on the effects as presented here might be a bit too 3E wizard centric. There'd be nothing inherently wrong, for example, in structuring the stamina system such that a fighter gets very little early (depending more on his basic hit points, strength, and arms), gets a decent dose of stamina around 5th level, grows rapidly in stamina for awhile, and then tapers off in the upper levels on the automatic stuff in favor of having to quest for it. Match that with no automatic spells for casters at the upper end, and it will work out fairly close. Then on top of that, put in an option for a handful of automatic high-level abilities for groups that don't want to fool with questing for them.

In any case, I'm not proposing that as a superior replacement, but rather as an alternative progression by way of example of what a 1E sensibility might constructively bring to the discussion.

I've said elsewhere that it was very helpful in early D&D that the wizard spell acquisition was somewhat independent of level gain, and that similar abilities should be available for all kinds of classes. Besides what Mustrum has discussed here, it vastly expands the kind of character growth pacing one can do in a campaign without having to butcher the rules. Ideally, the pace of such ability acquisition would not even be embedded into the level rules at all, but discussed separately in the context of play styles. (For example, if your DM is prone to be a miser, then the group might want to adopt some explicit gains, such as the 3E wizard gaining a minimum of two relevant spells per level. OTOH, if your DM is prone to being Santa Claus on this issue, then such a rule is merely a speed bump in your way.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd like to call spell acquisition or my proposed technique acquisiton - "lateral advancement". The character doesn't grow upwards in power, but he gains breadth and versatility. That sure is also some form of power, but usually less than gaining a new spell level or something like that.

I think there are areas where D&D should offer more of that. For example, I don't like that learning languages in 3E and 4E requires to grow in level. I'd also even say that "non-adventuring" skills like Crafting shouldn't really grow only (or even at all) by level. You don't need to kill more Orcs to get better at Crafting, and spending a month of your downtime in the city forging a new armor for yourself or a party member shouldn't grow your innate ability to kill orcs, but it should improve your skill in making armor.
I can easily accept 4E's half level bonus, because all the skills on that list are likely to be something you just use during adventuring and will likely improve a bit on. Even if Wizard really never trains climb, all those traveling through the wilderness with his party is bound to teach him a bit about climbing.
But learning a new language - Learning Dwarven while exploring an old Dwarven dungeon I can see, but I can also see sending a month in a Dwarven village teaching you something on languages, even if you're not doing anything adventury.

It could be nice if D&D also used gold as lateral advancement. But the devs already said there will be +x swords. *sigh*

 

[Libramarian]

A "mythical" Fighter would be a dealbreaker for me personally.

 

[FireLance]

A "mythical" Fighter would be a dealbreaker for me personally.

Frankly, to the Abyss with dealbreakers.

Tell us what you do want. Tell us why you want it. Tell us why you think it would be good for the game. Then, if you really really must, tell us why you cannot accept having a "mythical" fighter standing alongside the type of fighter that you do want even though that would create more options for everyone.

Preferably, in another thread, though.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A "mythical" Fighter would be a dealbreaker for me personally.

Dealbreaker
When you are making a purchase, spend 3 stamina and make a charisma check to intimidate the seller. You have advantage on that check. If you succeed, you pay half price, if you fail, the seller refuses to sell the item at all.

 

[Kraydak]

But we also have to realize that some old mechanics were also pretty unfun, even if they were technically balanced. Jack99 example of - take damage => lose spell. That may be balanced in that a Wizard cannot rely on his destructive magic to actually work - but it also means you take away one of the cool things the class can do. 3E instead made avoiding this too easy for it to be a genuine balancing mechanic. But, a fair compromise could have been - take damage, you must try again next round, instead of "take an action, lose your precious spell".

I believe one thing 3E often did was trying to make things more "elegant" and computable - stuff like Good Save = 2 + 1/2 Level, BAB = +1/Level or 3/4 Level or 1/2 Level, but never really considered how these values would affect and change gameplay and balance.

3e is in many ways mechanically superior. I like 3e. I also think that the designers really didn't grasp how extreme the net effect of their changes was going to be. That said, if your list of class abilities includes "Dominate" and "Finger of Death", you don't get to complain if your enemies usually save, or if getting those abilities off successfully is hard. Deal with it. There are some other options: there could be an execute range, with some spells imposing a -5 or more to saves if the target is below a certain fraction of their hp. But fundamentally, if your spells are scary, they need to be tricky to get to land for there to be any balance beyond eggshells armed with hammers. No way around that.

Frankly, to the Abyss with dealbreakers.

Tell us what you do want. Tell us why you want it. Tell us why you think it would be good for the game. Then, if you really really must, tell us why you cannot accept having a "mythical" fighter standing alongside the type of fighter that you do want even though that would create more options for everyone.

Preferably, in another thread, though.

Fighters with Dailies completely breaks any sense of immersion for me. *Talking* to someone should not deplete my *fighting* resources. Nor should I only be able to perform certain maneuvers a few times a day (Bo9S maneuvers however do work, because of the refresh mechanics). That isn't to say you couldn't come up with a Vancian-Fighter concept. There will be one in DnD Next. Eventually. But take your 3 or 3.5e PHB, and your Bo9S, and put the pages next to each other (for Bo9S, only through the end of the maneuvers). See how thick it is? There is barely room for Clerics and Wizards in the PHB (along with a very, very few iconic abilities for Paladins, Rangers and Bards, who mostly eat at the Clerics/Wizards table). Adding Vancian Fighter and Rogues? Not to mention Barbarians? Not going to happen.

The task in front of WotC right now is the non-Vancian fighter. It is popular, and frankly, they don't have room or balancing time for anything else. If you want to influence the designers' view of Fighters, non-Vancian is it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Fighters with Dailies completely breaks any sense of immersion for me. *Talking* to someone should not deplete my *fighting* resources.

I disagree to some extent, as seen in my example abilities. If you spend a few hours talking to people and put a lot of effort into it into convincing to help me (be it with smart words, threats, or beating someone up), it will strain you mentally and physically. The same applies for trying to keep coordinating your team mates while you are busy fighting yourself! Likewise, if you really want to scream a bunch of people down from fighting, that will not be an easy task.

That is what my stamina/technique system is trying to do. It is no more abstract in that than the hit point system really. (Of course, you may dislike the hit point system vagenuess already and don't want another one added to the game either.)

Also, I have to ask: How do you deal with the Playtest Fighter's Surge ability?

---

Watchmen's Search (Level 3)
You search thoroughly for anything of interest, leaving nothing unturned - you may make a big mess and meet disapproval by your more subtle friends, but you are sure thorough
During a search you can spend 1 stamina to grant yourself and your allies advantage on all checks to find whatever you are looking for. This covers an area of up to 50 x 50 ft and up to 20 ft high, and requires 2d4+1 minutes. There are some drawbacks to this method - instead of advantage, you and your allies suffer disadvantage on all checks to detect or avoid a trap, and any trap attacks have advantage against you. If there is a doubt who would trigger a trap, it's you. You cannot make any stealth checks to escape notice (but your allies may be able to do so), and the fact that someone searched the room is evident afterwards and can generally not be undone.


---

I could also see similar systems for Rogues and Rangers

Rogues: Have two pools - Finesse and Cunning.
Finesse is for physical stuff that is thematically appropriate for Rogues - evasive maneuvers, stealth and sneaky attacks, and so on, and Cunning for mental/social stuff. Both can help in the area of exploration.
Rangers: May have Stamina and Finesse
Barbarbians: Could also have Stamina, but a few unique abilities. Where the Fighter has Death Marks, the Barbarian may have Rage.
Warlords may have Stamina and Cunning

 

[Underman]

Dealbreaker
When you are making a purchase, spend 3 stamina and make a charisma check to intimidate the seller. You have advantage on that check. If you succeed, you pay half price, if you fail, the seller refuses to sell the item at all.

I think of dealbreaker as "I'm only really attracted to someone shorter/taller than me" or "I don't date smokers" or "I want to separate if you don't want children". A true dealbreaker is merely an assertive statement. A charisma-based intimidate check is just one possible followup.

Identify Dealbreaker
You find yourself in an undesirable situation from which you wish to withdraw. Spend 1 stamina point* to make a wisdom check. If you succeed, you gain True Sight into your dealbreaker.

Shield against the Dealbreaker
A creature asserts its dealbreaker. Spend 1 stamina point* to make a wisdom check. If you fail, you become Angry and take a -3 penalty to diplomacy checks.

Channel Dealbreaker
Spend 10 stamina points and at least 1 real-life hr (on EnWorld, you must spend 50 stamina points and a minimum 12 real-life hours). Make a charisma check. If you succeed, a creature shares your understanding of your dealbreaker and you gain a +3 bonus to related diplomacy checks.

* If you are Enlightened, you don't spend any stamina points to make a wisdom check.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think of dealbreaker as "I'm only really attracted to someone shorter/taller than me" or "I don't date smokers" or "I want to separate if you don't want children". A true dealbreaker is merely an assertive statement. A charisma-based intimidate check is just one possible followup.

Identify Dealbreaker
You find yourself in an undesirable situation from which you wish to withdraw. Spend 1 stamina point* to make a wisdom check. If you succeed, you gain True Sight into your dealbreaker.

Shield against the Dealbreaker
A creature asserts its dealbreaker. Spend 1 stamina point* to make a wisdom check. If you fail, you become Angry and take a -3 penalty to diplomacy checks.

Channel Dealbreaker
Spend 10 stamina points and at least 1 real-life hr (on EnWorld, you must spend 50 stamina points and a minimum 12 real-life hours). Make a charisma check. If you succeed, a creature shares your understanding of your dealbreaker and you gain a +3 bonus to related diplomacy checks.

* If you are Enlightened, you don't spend any stamina points to make a wisdom check.

Oh, I must have gotten it wrong then. I thought a deal breaker was someone that would break your arms if you broke the deal.