D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[Minigiant]

Then 4e didn’t do that at all. Maybe it’s your choice of example that’s messing me up.

4e did have mechanics that let fighters who could tank without hallways, let rogues spam high damage, and let cleric buff and heal while dealing damage.

What got people upset was that it didn't let them do anything else. And 4e died before it could.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, WotC 5e is pretty sketchy about what it's trying to support, but its pretty much the only one.

Bounded accuracy, embracing neo vanician casting, etc. definitely seem to be supporting particular playstyles to me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, like it or not, 4e had a playstyle agenda, and both encouraged and supported it.

That was an edition war talking point, sure. 4e no longer de-facto forced traditional playstyles rooted in Gygax's quixotic 70s design. From the PoV of people who were deeply accustomed to those few styles being forced on everyone, it seemed they were no longer 'supported.'

Spoiler: meh,4e...

FWIW, you could run D&D the same way you ran it back in the day, even under 4e, it was just obvious to the players that you're taking liberties, since that style included a lot of homebrewing and off the cuff rulings. And, while off the cuff rulings were just rarely called for, homebrewing was a bit of a mixed bag in 4e. Creating a new item wasn't any harder than it had ever been, creating a new monster was easier than ever, and generally modding the balance of monsters to get faster or deadlier combat was doable (FourthCore, frex), even new races weren't beyond the pale - but new Classes were extraordinarily difficult, there was just so much more to a 4e class....

Well, WotC 5e is pretty sketchy about what it's trying to support, but its pretty much the only one.

5e split it's effort between the TSR faction, demanding caster superiority & DM empowerment, and the 3.x faction, demanding caster supremacy and Player empowerment.

The result is a bit mixed. It provides far more customization on the player side than TSR (less than 3e or 4e), but the vague rules and play loop make it very DM-dependent. On balance, having run it, I'd say DM empowerment still easily wins out, I can run 5e very much like I used to run 1e and even new/young players don't notice or complain.

 

[James Gasik]

Inside is easier to defend than outside, yes. That's how the world works. And how exactly did the 1e rule you're referencing work? Its been a while since I played 1e, and the OSR games I favor handle the issue differently.

I had this explained to me awhile back when discussing this topic: Once you're in melee range with anyone, your combat options are limited to: attack, parry, fall back, or flee (PHB 104). So if the warriors are up front, simply getting within reach of them halts your movement. Fall back and Retreat are retrograde movements, so you have no ability to move past someone you're in melee with.

 

[Bluenose]

That didn’t really help either. Why would someone want to enforce playstyle at all? Why is that a good thing to do?

Because the designers are making rules that support what they think players/GMs are going to do. They'll make assumptions about the way the game should go and write rules that make sense if it goes that way.

And then when it doesn't play that way in most groups, the end result is constant complaining about how the game doesn't work properly for some - or most - playstyles and situations.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because the designers are making rules that support what they think players/GMs are going to do. They'll make assumptions about the way the game should go and write rules that make sense if it goes that way.

And then when it doesn't play that way in most groups, the end result is constant complaining about how the game doesn't work properly for some - or most - playstyles and situations.

So I don’t understand because it seems like all games do this.

 

[James Gasik]

Because the designers are making rules that support what they think players/GMs are going to do. They'll make assumptions about the way the game should go and write rules that make sense if it goes that way.

And then when it doesn't play that way in most groups, the end result is constant complaining about how the game doesn't work properly for some - or most - playstyles and situations.

A good example of this is the 3e playtest, where the spellcasters loaded up on damage spells, so WotC was like "ah, everyone will play blasters". Fast forward to some of the most busted spells in the game being ones that nerfed foes into the ground!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Bounded accuracy, embracing neo vanician casting, etc. definitely seem to be supporting particular playstyles to me.

What playstyle is that? Seriously, I just see "everyone please play our game and buy our cereal". What playstyle are they trying to encourage?

 

[Pedantic]

I had this explained to me awhile back when discussing this topic: Once you're in melee range with anyone, your combat options are limited to: attack, parry, fall back, or flee (PHB 104). So if the warriors are up front, simply getting within reach of them halts your movement. Fall back and Retreat are retrograde movements, so you have no ability to move past someone you're in melee with.

I imagine this is the predecessor of the modern opportunity attack.

I quite liked Fantasy Craft's take on the concept, which simply required you to end your movement once you were next to an enemy. Moving and attacking both ate one of your two actions for the turn, so at a baseline before you started throwing in feat/class abilities to further, the best you could do was run next to the frontline, then run past them to the backline in one turn.

 

[Umbran]

I'm sorry to hear you can't wrap your head around the idea ...

Mod Note:
And if I said right now, "I'm sorry to hear you can't wrap your head around the idea of not making discussions personal...." we'd expect complaints to Morrus about how much of a jerk I was being.

Thankfully, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the Golden Rule applies: Do unto others as you'd have done unto you. Treat people better. Thanks.