Swordsage: The Complex Fighter

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So I like the creativity involved in creating this class, but I think you're reinventing the wheel a bit. I understand the design goal to be the creation of a more tactically interesting fighter with resource management. But the binary (on or off) design of the focus actually ensures LESS resource management than battlemasters or eldritch knights. You've taken away the fighter's third and fourth attacks, which actually did create more tactical possibilities, to replace them with static damage bonuses. Action Surge was another ability that didn't really go against your design goal of more varied and tactical combat. To replace all that (and of course subclasses), you've put in basically the rogue's Cunning Action spread out over a bunch of levels and new, often very cool maneuvers.

So my question to you: wouldn't it make more sense to just make a big list of new battlemaster maneuvers? Seems like that subclass already does much of what you're looking for (perhaps alongside a 2-level dip in rogue). You just need shinier maneuvers.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sorry to break it to you Sacrosanct, but you started the table flipping example when resonding to Jack_the_Lad about "tactically interesting choices" in combat.
.

I hate to break it to you, but there are two different conversations going on. One is around improvisations, and the other is around the claim that doing more damage is always the right choice. Those are mutually exclusive. I've just pointed this out to you literally in the post you just quoted and you still insist on acting like they aren't.

To make this abundantly clear of my position in this thread:

* always choosing the option to do more damage is not always the best choice. I've given some examples, but really all you need is one to disprove that assumption.
* analyzing which choice is better based on white room analysis that ignores the environmental factors is flawed because I've never played a single game of D&D where there weren't factors that impacted my choice or that combat encounter (factors like allies, how many opponents, what type of opponents, how many resources you happen to have left, how many combats are you going to get into before your next long rest, the environment itself [buildings, weather, etc], etc, etc)
* claiming or acting like that without codified powers, your PC can't do anything is lazy and flat out incorrect. There is nothing stopping you from trying to trip or disarm your opponent even if you don't have the trip or disarm power.

Who cares about your three "points" because they are all strawmen. I don't care if you want to have codified powers; more power to you. I've never argued they should never exist. I have argued that you aren't prevented from making tactical decisions if you don't have codified powers. Which is true. Just say what you want your character to do and tada! there you go. Not all tactical decisions have to be an uber power.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Seems to me the "improvised vs codified stunts" argument is a bit beside the point: most of the powers this class gets are things very few DMs would allow you to improvise, like dealing area damage in a cone or bonuses on saves.

 

[Ashkelon]

I hate to break it to you, but there are two different conversations going on. One is around improvisations, and the other is around the claim that doing more damage is always the right choice. Those are mutually exclusive. I've just pointed this out to you literally in the post you just quoted and you still insist on acting like they aren't.

To make this abundantly clear of my position in this thread:

* always choosing the option to do more damage is not always the best choice. I've given some examples, but really all you need is one to disprove that assumption.

You clearly haven't been reading anything I have been posting. I have stated repeatedly that doing damage is the best option THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME. I never once said all the time. That is all you. I have given math to back up the fact that all of your so called "examples" of improvisation actually lead to a larger drain on party resources and longer combats.

* analyzing which choice is better based on white room analysis that ignores the environmental factors is flawed because I've never played a single game of D&D where there weren't factors that impacted my choice or that combat encounter (factors like allies, how many opponents, what type of opponents, how many resources you happen to have left, how many combats are you going to get into before your next long rest, the environment itself [buildings, weather, etc], etc, etc)

I know this and have said as much already. That is why I used the expression nine-times in ten using an improvised action is worse than simply attacking. Pushing an ogre off a cliff will be a better use of your turn than attempting to attack it in most scenarios, but it is very rare to fight ogres near cliffsides.

* claiming or acting like that without codified powers, your PC can't do anything is lazy and flat out incorrect. There is nothing stopping you from trying to trip or disarm your opponent even if you don't have the trip or disarm power.

Who claimed that. Again you aren't even reading what I am writing. I have said repeatedly that codified abilities does not hinder improvisation. YOU CAN IMPROVISE WITH CODIFIED ABILITIES!

Who cares about your three "points" because they are all strawmen. I don't care if you want to have codified powers; more power to you. I've never argued they should never exist. I have argued that you aren't prevented from making tactical decisions if you don't have codified powers. Which is true. Just say what you want your character to do and tada! there you go. Not all tactical decisions have to be an uber power.

Again because you clearly never actually read anything I wrote, here are the three points:

1. Some players want special abilities that are more reliable in application and not subject to DM whimsy.
2. Some players want special abilities that cannot be replicated through improvisation.
3. Just because you have a few limited use codified abilities, there is nothing preventing you from improvising. In fact, you can combine improvisation with your codified abilities.

You saying 'just improvise" fails at addressing all three of those goals.

 

[pemerton]

Nine times in ten, doing more damage is the best option. You can easily do the math to calculate this.

You can? Then do it. "Easily" do the math that accounts for all the possible encounter scenarios PCs may find themselves in.

I did. Upthread. Showing that there are no monsters in the MM for whom tipping over a table to get +2 AC will produce a 60% reduction in expected incoming damage.

Ashkelon did the maths for shove. And also did the maths for +2 STR vs Heavy Armour Mastery (even though, as has been pointed out, HAM is a feat and hence not an example of improvisation/out-of-the-box thinking).

Why don't you give us an actual play example of the sort of out-of-the-box thinking you have in mind that is (i) better than doing damage, and (ii) puts a Champion-style fighter on a par with a mid-to-highl level caster?

 

[Ashkelon]

So I like the creativity involved in creating this class, but I think you're reinventing the wheel a bit. I understand the design goal to be the creation of a more tactically interesting fighter with resource management. But the binary (on or off) design of the focus actually ensures LESS resource management than battlemasters or eldritch knights. You've taken away the fighter's third and fourth attacks, which actually did create more tactical possibilities, to replace them with static damage bonuses. Action Surge was another ability that didn't really go against your design goal of more varied and tactical combat. To replace all that (and of course subclasses), you've put in basically the rogue's Cunning Action spread out over a bunch of levels and new, often very cool maneuvers.

So my question to you: wouldn't it make more sense to just make a big list of new battlemaster maneuvers? Seems like that subclass already does much of what you're looking for (perhaps alongside a 2-level dip in rogue). You just need shinier maneuvers.

So my very first iteration of the class (from early 2013) actually used Ki as a resource (before the monk even existed mind you). Testing led to some problems though that I feel are shared by classes like the monk, battlemaster, and warlock. Abilities based on limited use resources don't lead to interesting gameplay IMHO. Basically, the class would always use up its ki for maneuvers, then be stuck with basic attacks. It made the first few rounds of combat interesting, but the last few rounds become too repetitive. At least the spellcasters have a variety of at-will cantrips to fall back on when they are out of resources. Martial PCs aren't so lucky.

The initial drafts had ki recover with a 5 minute rest, so it was usable every combat. This at least ensured that some maneuvers were usable each combat. Having a resource recover with a 1 hour rest would make it too infrequent (like the battlemaster) or effectively at-will (like the level 20 monk). I want maneuver usage to be more frequent than battlemaster 12 maneuvers per day, and less frequent than the monk 40 maneuvers per day.

The resource mechanic went through a number of iterations between then and now, but ultimately, I like the "combat focus" the best. I was turned onto it by seeing the 13th Age rogue in action with their "momentum" powers. You are right though, the resource tracking is actually very limited, almost nonexistent. I like the simplicity of that method though. Having less to keep track of is a good thing for the most part, especially when you already have to keep track of things like boosts and counters.

The tactical depth and complexity of the swordsage comes not from keeping track of limited resources, but for how to spend your combat focus and what maneuver to spend it on. Do you use a boost now, then take the Attack action hoping to hit so you can use a counter later on? Do you initiate a strike now even though you might lose your focus and not be able to counter? If you just hit with a strike, do you save your focus or initiate a boost? If you are going to use a strike, do you want to hinder your targets movements, leap into a better position, prevent the target from taking reactions, or something else entirely?

 

[Aribar]

This is a pretty awesome homebrewed class. I love how powerful all of the capstone abilities are, as well as the Fighting Style and Deadly Strike abilities. The consolidated list of maneuvers(especially stuff that gets stronger at higher levels) are pretty nice. The only thing I'm disappointed by (and even then not by much) is Battle Clarity/combat focus; it's a simple solution to representing the maneuver renewal in 3E, but I wonder what it would be like if it could be improved via feats like 3E's Psionic Focus or PHB2 Combat Focus feats.


As for the arguments in this thread... "Dead" is pretty much the best status effect. A combination of that plus D&D's action economy means that killing enemies (whenever you can't bypass them with Hold Person, Polymorph, etc.) is often the best course of action. Improvisation requires the DM to be okay with your idea and can often include penalties ("Oh, do it at a -2 penalty." "Sure, but you have disadvantage") PLUS it often has the opportunity cost of using up an action that could be used for more damage. And as for the "Wizards have limited resources, fighters can attack all day"... There are 14,400 rounds a day. I don't think a fighter can even last 100 a day before being killed. Not to mention a wizard's limitations are often controlled by the party; they can typically decide at any point in time when to rest and regain all those spells, or how much adventuring to do a day.

 

[Ashkelon]

Seems to me the "improvised vs codified stunts" argument is a bit beside the point: most of the powers this class gets are things very few DMs would allow you to improvise, like dealing area damage in a cone or bonuses on saves.

Exactly! My thought process was that if you could just improvise it, you don't need a maneuver for it. Maneuvers should be for those exceptional martial exploits that cannot be replicated through mere improvisation.

 

[Dausuul]

So I like the creativity involved in creating this class, but I think you're reinventing the wheel a bit. I understand the design goal to be the creation of a more tactically interesting fighter with resource management. But the binary (on or off) design of the focus actually ensures LESS resource management than battlemasters or eldritch knights. You've taken away the fighter's third and fourth attacks, which actually did create more tactical possibilities, to replace them with static damage bonuses. Action Surge was another ability that didn't really go against your design goal of more varied and tactical combat. To replace all that (and of course subclasses), you've put in basically the rogue's Cunning Action spread out over a bunch of levels and new, often very cool maneuvers.

So my question to you: wouldn't it make more sense to just make a big list of new battlemaster maneuvers? Seems like that subclass already does much of what you're looking for (perhaps alongside a 2-level dip in rogue). You just need shinier maneuvers.

An alternative, for those seeking more utility, is a monk with the Weapon Master feat and either Way of Shadow or Way of the Four Elements.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So my very first iteration of the class (from early 2013) actually used Ki as a resource (before the monk even existed mind you). Testing led to some problems though that I feel are shared by classes like the monk, battlemaster, and warlock. Abilities based on limited use resources don't lead to interesting gameplay IMHO. Basically, the class would always use up its ki for maneuvers, then be stuck with basic attacks. It made the first few rounds of combat interesting, but the last few rounds become too repetitive. At least the spellcasters have a variety of at-will cantrips to fall back on when they are out of resources. Martial PCs aren't so lucky.

The initial drafts had ki recover with a 5 minute rest, so it was usable every combat. This at least ensured that some maneuvers were usable each combat. Having a resource recover with a 1 hour rest would make it too infrequent (like the battlemaster) or effectively at-will (like the level 20 monk). I want maneuver usage to be more frequent than battlemaster 12 maneuvers per day, and less frequent than the monk 40 maneuvers per day.

The resource mechanic went through a number of iterations between then and now, but ultimately, I like the "combat focus" the best. I was turned onto it by seeing the 13th Age rogue in action with their "momentum" powers. You are right though, the resource tracking is actually very limited, almost nonexistent. I like the simplicity of that method though. Having less to keep track of is a good thing for the most part, especially when you already have to keep track of things like boosts and counters.

The tactical depth and complexity of the swordsage comes not from keeping track of limited resources, but for how to spend your combat focus and what maneuver to spend it on. Do you use a boost now, then take the Attack action hoping to hit so you can use a counter later on? Do you initiate a strike now even though you might lose your focus and not be able to counter? If you just hit with a strike, do you save your focus or initiate a boost? If you are going to use a strike, do you want to hinder your targets movements, leap into a better position, prevent the target from taking reactions, or something else entirely?

I definitely see the appeal, but this approach risks locking you into a pattern of one cool turn followed by one boring turn. Losing the ability to "stockpile" or "nova" those resources, at least to some degree, can be restrictive.

Anyway, what about adding a feat that lets you spend an action to make a single weapon attack and regain one expertise due when you're out of expertise dice? Adds some longevity to battlemasters.