D&D 5E Q&A February 14th: Lines, Finding Spells & Fighter Identity

[Klaus]

The thing about warriors that is missing is that the traditional destiny/identity outside of combat is to become leaders of men. Kings, warlords, generals, emperors. Look at the list provided: "Gimli, Lan Mandragoran, Leonidas, Madmartigan (yeah, that’s right, I made a Willow reference), the eponymous Seven Samurai, and King Arthur."

Fully half that list are kings outright. And there are many other examples (Conan, Richard the Lion-hearted, etc.)

2E acknowledged this through the followers and stronghold rules. I would love to see Next work this into the fighter class.

That is all ancillary to a warrior's identity, more window-dressing than the core of their identities. Look instead at what King Arthur, Madmartigan and Conan had in common: they were unflappable. When faced with a giant, Arthur simply cut off its legs so he could reach his head and behead it. Anything that bleeds, Conan can kill, be it Pict savage, Stygian sorcerer or demon-ape of the underworld. And Madmartigan took on a two-headed dragon almost single-handedly (that Ewok helped a bit).

 

[mlund]

The Fighter needs two things:

1 - A knack for action-movie stunts (helps improvised combat, exploration, and non-social interaction)

2 - The ability to "walk off" various hindering conditions by spending those Hit Points he's been hording

The Fighter is a tough nut to crack, and it isn't a reflection of having more Meat than the next guy. You want to hit him? Try it. You want to Dominate him? Try it. Oh, he failed his save? At the end of his next turn he spends 10 hit points and ends the effect. Get ready to eat cold steel, wand-jockey.

And yes, that's a concept that's been promised in various forms since D&DNext was announced and still hasn't bee put into practice. It's time to build in the mechanic you promised us already.

 

[Evenglare]

Finding spells and finding maneuvers/feats have direct precedent in myth/legend... not sure what M&M / HERO / GURPS has to do with anything.
@Evenglare Should I recommend that you buy the reprints they have come out with if that is really what you are after?

If you want to find spells and maneuvers as little packages or treasure, it seems that you would go with a system that already is conducive to that play style. In HERO or Gurps or MM you can model these with actions or skills. Each of these has a particular amount of points per build. This translates wonderfully into an analogous money or experience allotment as normal treasure would be valued at. To disassemble and reassemble a game like D&D where these things come as a natural class progression seems EXTREMELY time consuming when there are MANY other systems out there that would allow you to "discover" "train" or "buy" skills as part of the system.

I didnt really think it was that hard to understand what I was saying. I'm not saying you CANT do it with D&D, all I'm saying is that there are many systems out there that provide this play style much MUCH better than D&D does. The mutant and mastermind book Warriors and Warlocks is built from the ground up to do this very thing.

 

[Morrus]

Where barbarians are superstitious, fighters are practical. Where monks are esoteric, fighters are concrete. Where paladins are lofty, fighters are realistic. Where rangers are flighty, fighters are reliable. That's not a bad archetype.

There's a counter-argument - those are just personality traits. A fighter can be superstitious or unreliable, as can a wizard or a rogue or a baker. For me, every possible personality trait doesn't require a different class. A knight or a barbarian or a gladiator or a soldier could just be fighters with different personalities and equipment (although I'd agree that "barbarian" has earned its place in the D&D lexicon, but only because it's a sacred cow).

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you want to find spells and maneuvers as little packages or treasure, it seems that you would go with a system that already is conducive to that play style.

Since OD&D and 1e are pretty conducive to that playstyle, I don't imagine that NEXT should be very averse to it. It's not un-D&D-like.

There's a counter-argument - those are just personality traits. A fighter can be superstitious or unreliable, as can a wizard or a rogue or a baker. For me, every possible personality trait doesn't require a different class.

That makes sense, but personality traits are kind of part of the archetype. While everyone's welcome to play a frail, socially outgoing, teetoalling dwarf, you expect the basic dwarf to deliver the basic dwarf personality traits, at least. I think the more Advanced-style you go, the less a class needs to cleave to a certain personality trait. Which, I imagine, is why you get to start swapping out basic abilities and class traits and backgrounds and specialties when you get to Standard.

But for the Basic-level player, it makes a bit more sense to make sure the archetype is tethered to a personality trait, too, I think. That way when someone is like "What's a Fighter? What's he do in the dungeon?", the abilities can give them some guideance. Oh! Fighters are TOUGH muthafuggas, and they can beat down locked doors with their bare hands.

 

[Cadence]

There's a counter-argument - those are just personality traits. A fighter can be superstitious or unreliable, as can a wizard or a rogue or a baker. For me, every possible personality trait doesn't require a different class. A knight or a barbarian or a gladiator or a soldier could just be fighters with different personalities and equipment (although I'd agree that "barbarian" has earned its place in the D&D lexicon, but only because it's a sacred cow).

I used to always wonder why Barbarians deserved their own class... but every time I read through Howard's Conan stories again, about the innate difference between the civilized and the uncivilized, I'm left with the feeling that having their own class makes perfect sense. I don't know how to put it into words without just quoting ad nauseum from the stories though.

 

[Garthanos]

Well perhaps you arent getting it...

I'm not saying you CANT do it with D&D, all I'm saying is that there are many systems out there that provide this play style much MUCH better than D&D does. .

D&D from the beginning allowed spell casters to discover there spells (a tool largely for gaining versatility not necessarily power (the slots themselves are power)... Maneuvers are pretty much that same thing, unless they are miss-designed getting more should just enhance battlefield role versatility.

None of the games you mention use that style of mechanism... but rather tie any character gains to a point cost that point cost is in effect your level. D&D is far better geared for the concept of world tied versatility and has used it since 0e, but the fighting man was kind of in the cold.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Being a fighter isn’t just about punching or stabbing (or shooting) someone really hard; it’s about adhering to the warrior archetype. You’ve probably heard the phrase, “The Way of the Warrior;” it’s a term coined to describe not just combat competence, but a lifestyle dedicated to prowess and the application of the lessons learned in battle to the rest of his or her life. The fighter class cleaves closest to this archetype, and it’s very easy to see how the philosophy of the warrior emerges through the fighter class. The warrior archetype is based on skill, aggression, purpose, adaptability, self-reliance and discipline, not just on the battlefield but also in life.

They say "being a fighter isn't just about punching or stabbing (or shooting)," but yet all the fighter class gets are abilities that let them punch and stab (and shoot) better. Instead of giving them any out-of-combat abilities, they take the "just roleplay" copout. *Sigh* Can you imagine if they said the same thing to rogues? "Oh yeah, rogues are about more than just stabbing people in the back, but as for the rest of it, just roleplay!" People would be outraged, and rightly so.

 

[Evenglare]

Well perhaps you arent getting it...

D&D from the beginning allowed spell casters to discover there spells (a tool largely for gaining versatility not necessarily power (the slots themselves are power)... Maneuvers are pretty much that same thing, unless they are miss-designed getting more should just enhance battlefield role versatility.

None of the games you mention use that style of mechanism... but rather tie any character gains to a point cost that point cost is in effect your level. D&D is far better geared for the concept of world tied versatility and has used it since 0e, but the fighting man was kind of in the cold.

No... you are missing half of the argument. People are looking for a way of advancement through ONLY learning Maneuvers and spells through treasure. As kamakazi Midget said on first page > Pfft, only zero level? Naaah, I want this to be the whole game, perhaps.

This is the quote I am replying to. So no, you are incorrect , D&D has had these as SUPPLEMENTAL advancements, but in no way has D&D EVER had a way of advancement where you learned and gained maneuvers and spells as training/treasure ONLY, there's the key word. At least in 3rd and 4th edition when you leveled you automatically got new spells/maneuvers or whatever your class had. You always gained them UPON leveling Rules as written. If you want a system where you gain spells or maneuvers through story/training/treasure with out modifying the D&D (3e and 4e) system to explicitly make the characters go and train upon leveling. Then my suggestion is to go and use these skill based systems as a method of play.

Now I don't have as much experience with 2nd and OD&D, so if that's how you trained and learned spells SOLELY through treasure and roleplaying, then great go play that. But it seems to me that you would still have to go gain levels and qualify for the spells/maneuvers before you had access to them. For a pure game based on learning things through experience / treasure/ and roleplaying then it would seem to me a skill based system is what you are after.

 

[Garthanos]

No... you are missing half of the argument. People are looking for a way of advancement through ONLY learning Maneuvers and spells through treasure. As kamakazi Midget said on first page > Pfft, only zero level? Naaah, I want this to be the whole game, perhaps.

This is the quote I am replying to. So no, you are incorrect , D&D has had these as SUPPLEMENTAL advancements, but in no way has D&D EVER had a way of advancement where you learned and gained maneuvers and spells as training/treasure ONLY, there's the key word.

In 1e aside from the piddling few at level one spells... umm yes every new spell came out of treasure and its about the only game that has that.
But yes I like the player driven control over what spells/maneuver you gain in 3e and 4e, 2e allowed the extension beyond a couple spells and 1e was only via found spells.

RuneQuest I will give you as an example did have tons of this (but there was a limit of how much skill training or weapon training could achieve) - but it allowed you to purchase training with in game world money and time for anything at all.And if the game world treats training as relatively available it still manages to feel player controlled.(cake and eat it too).
GURPS and HERO are not like that at all.. its more like spending experience points to get exactly what you want.

But D&D did indeed start as spells were under the auspices and control of the DM and the treasures he put out.