The Playtest Fighter

How do you like the current version of the playtest fighter?

  • Not At All

    Votes: 31 17.7%
  • Not really

    Votes: 31 17.7%
  • It's alright

    Votes: 51 29.1%
  • I like it

    Votes: 43 24.6%
  • I like it a lot

    Votes: 19 10.9%

Bran Mak Morn

First Post
The Orc Chieftan is a seasoned warrior and won his position in trial-by-combat. That means you can look at it a couple of ways:

1. He won't fall for it because it's pretty much telegraphed coming from you where the rogue is dexterous, , sneaky and practiced at it. He blinks and your attempt fails.

or

2. The Rogue can save his attempt because you already "blinded" the Orc and he gets Advantage from it also.

or

3. If you try to do this every single fight, it's just a created power and is no different and the DM should assign it as such. It isn't creative after you've done it a couple of times, it's a standard trick in your repertoire.

Hello Herschel,

I am not sure we really disagree :)

What you say above is exactly what I mean, in my opinion the DM should be free to say -The Orc chieftain swiftly ducks and, smiling, yells in Orcish (which your dwarven fighter happens to know) "I crushed like this my first two brothers at the age 10, you Rock-Eater" can I make the 4E rogue accept that Sand in the Eyes do not really work with a Giant with head at 30 feet from the ground? Much harder.

What I like here is the change in the way of thinking things, rather than the single mechanics. Power abuse was always prevented by the DM's call at my table, never strictly by the rules themselves.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bran Mak Morn

First Post
This shouldn't work easily. The orc wouldn't have become a chief for falling on simple tricks done by an amateur.
And your suggestion for NEXT? The fighter does what you describe ones and you think "well-done, fighter". The rogue player sees how the DM ruled it and now uses it always for permanent extra damage.

Just thinking.

Hello Walking Dad - love it! :) -

I don't totally agree with the fighter being an amateur, but I get your point.

I understand that there are many people having experiences where there is a significant try to abuse the rules as much as it's possible, from the players' side. I really understand this. I just think that giving back the DM the power to say a gentle but firm NO without explicitly and blatantly breaking a written rule of the PHB (this gets PC at my table mad) is the only way to balance the game in the long run.

The Kobold minion will be tricked, the Orc chieftain will not (or maybe he will when you will be a 20th level fighter) :)
 

Scribble

First Post
I agree the game needs "Easy Mode" characters... But I also think it shouldn't just default to the fighter. Give me an easy mode Cleric, Wizard, and Thief as well.
 

Balesir

Adventurer
However, categorizing all those abilities makes improvisation uncomfortable. The player can say "I swing my axe at the goblin, trying to knock him off the cliff" but how does that interplay with Tide of Iron? Should there be a penalty there? Did you just give away a power for free? Did another player waste a power slot on that power?
You are right that Tide of Iron (and even more, I think, Bull Rush) provides a yardstick against which all "knock him in the pit" "improvisations" will be measured.

But, what happens without such basic powers in place? Pretty soon, a player has their character try to bash an enemy into a pit. After all, it's a pretty obvious thing to try. The DM makes a ruling on what happens. Now, here's the trick; the next time a player wants their character to bash an enemy into a pit, hasn't that previous "precedent" set just as much of a yardstick as Bull Rush or Tide of Iron? As humans, we like system; we like consistency. If a system starts out with vague, hand wavey stuff about "improvisation" and "freedom for the DM to make rulings" then pretty soon the common "brilliant ideas" (i.e. most of the ones that are actually commonly useful) will be done in the game, and precedent will be set as to how such "innovations" are handled.

So, if you want to make terrain/zones and improvisation/stunts come up in play, don't list out a ton of options on the character sheet. Let people focus on the battle, looking for options in the battle, rather than focusing on their character sheet looking for options there.
The common (i.e. actually useful) "innovations" will soon generate precedents - and then you are back where you were with 4e. Except actually worse, since, unless these basic manoeuvres are defined in the system, rules like "give Fighters advantage whenever they try these manoeuvres" are impossible since there is nothing to specify the advantage for.

I've said it before, but "innovating" by making up stuff not covered by the rules is not the only way to improvise or show creativity - it's just the easy, cop out way. The way I much prefer is to see improvisation and creativity inside the rules. With my current 4e players I see this a fair amount; they are focussed on the map, not on their power cards, and they are sometimes using At Will powers (when they have Encounter powers left) because they see an opportunity to make someone else's Encounter power more effective by doing so. Creativity to feed into each others' attacks as a party is great, IMO - I love to see it in 4e and I would love it if I saw it really encouraged in Next.

Oh, and someone mentioned that "some players seem worried to lose their "rights" to the DM, but it shouldn't be Players vs. DM". My answer would be that I don't think it's the DM such players are worried about; it's other players. Without good rules for all common manoeuvres, my experience is that it pretty soon comes down to who, among the players, can sweet-talk/double-talk/bluff the DM best into letting them get away with more and better "improvised" things. So often I have seen one player suffering relative superiority at the table because they can blag stuff past the GM, either because they are just a good persuader, or because their tastes and beliefs align closely with the GM's, or because they read the likes and dislikes of the GM well. I generally like some friendly competition between players (akin, perhaps, to the archetypal "orc counting" between Gimli and Legolas), but "skill based" play aimed at manipulating the GM to the maximum extent possible just makes my lips curl.
 

Walking Dad

First Post
...

Oh, and someone mentioned that "some players seem worried to lose their "rights" to the DM, but it shouldn't be Players vs. DM". My answer would be that I don't think it's the DM such players are worried about; it's other players. Without good rules for all common manoeuvres, my experience is that it pretty soon comes down to who, among the players, can sweet-talk/double-talk/bluff the DM best into letting them get away with more and better "improvised" things. So often I have seen one player suffering relative superiority at the table because they can blag stuff past the GM, either because they are just a good persuader, or because their tastes and beliefs align closely with the GM's, or because they read the likes and dislikes of the GM well. I generally like some friendly competition between players (akin, perhaps, to the archetypal "orc counting" between Gimli and Legolas), but "skill based" play aimed at manipulating the GM to the maximum extent possible just makes my lips curl.
This!
If the DM and one player think ninjas are awesome and one thinks spartan warriors are, which player will have an easier time to persuade the DM that his stunts are cool and reasonable?
 

Eric Tolle

First Post
I agree the game needs "Easy Mode" characters... But I also think it shouldn't just default to the fighter. Give me an easy mode Cleric, Wizard, and Thief as well.

But don't you see, the easy mode character HAS to suck rocks compared to casters! That way new players will be encouraged to develop system mastery so they too will be able to play the cool classes.
 

Bran Mak Morn

First Post
You are right that Tide of Iron (and even more, I think, Bull Rush) provides a yardstick against which all "knock him in the pit" "improvisations" will be measured.

But, what happens without such basic powers in place? Pretty soon, a player has their character try to bash an enemy into a pit. After all, it's a pretty obvious thing to try. The DM makes a ruling on what happens. Now, here's the trick; the next time a player wants their character to bash an enemy into a pit, hasn't that previous "precedent" set just as much of a yardstick as Bull Rush or Tide of Iron? As humans, we like system; we like consistency. If a system starts out with vague, hand wavey stuff about "improvisation" and "freedom for the DM to make rulings" then pretty soon the common "brilliant ideas" (i.e. most of the ones that are actually commonly useful) will be done in the game, and precedent will be set as to how such "innovations" are handled.

The common (i.e. actually useful) "innovations" will soon generate precedents - and then you are back where you were with 4e. Except actually worse, since, unless these basic manoeuvres are defined in the system, rules like "give Fighters advantage whenever they try these manoeuvres" are impossible since there is nothing to specify the advantage for.

I've said it before, but "innovating" by making up stuff not covered by the rules is not the only way to improvise or show creativity - it's just the easy, cop out way. The way I much prefer is to see improvisation and creativity inside the rules. With my current 4e players I see this a fair amount; they are focussed on the map, not on their power cards, and they are sometimes using At Will powers (when they have Encounter powers left) because they see an opportunity to make someone else's Encounter power more effective by doing so. Creativity to feed into each others' attacks as a party is great, IMO - I love to see it in 4e and I would love it if I saw it really encouraged in Next.

Oh, and someone mentioned that "some players seem worried to lose their "rights" to the DM, but it shouldn't be Players vs. DM". My answer would be that I don't think it's the DM such players are worried about; it's other players. Without good rules for all common manoeuvres, my experience is that it pretty soon comes down to who, among the players, can sweet-talk/double-talk/bluff the DM best into letting them get away with more and better "improvised" things. So often I have seen one player suffering relative superiority at the table because they can blag stuff past the GM, either because they are just a good persuader, or because their tastes and beliefs align closely with the GM's, or because they read the likes and dislikes of the GM well. I generally like some friendly competition between players (akin, perhaps, to the archetypal "orc counting" between Gimli and Legolas), but "skill based" play aimed at manipulating the GM to the maximum extent possible just makes my lips curl.

Hi Balesir,
If I understand you correctly, the problem is that giving too much judgment power to the DM will inevitably lead to a situation where the your connection/friendship/marriage with the DM or the “superior” social skills you have will make a difference on the table, IF there isn’t a coherent and consistent set of rules aimed to establish what can be done and how can be done, with balance on top. I agree this can be a relative issue. I saw it happening and I agree it can happen more frequently with some category of players, I just think this is a risk I am happier to accept than the “many rules to rule them all” (including the DM) 4E introduced. I believe the goal of this playtest and of the modularity they want to implement is also to find a common ground where everyone is feeling comfortable, which is a great – and yes difficult – goal. I just like the creative narrative rules more than the streamlined approach. I see more potential, that’s it :)
 

Balesir

Adventurer
Fair enough :)

Funnily enough, I see less potential for creativity inside the rules the more DM fiat is allowed to reign. I look at Chess, which has very little scope for outside-the-rules creativity but loads of scope for inside-the-rules creativity, as an example. And the rules don't even need to be super-complex or fiddly, if they are done right (and I think 4e works pretty well in this respect, in fact).
 

Perspicacity

First Post
Out of curiosity, have you looked at Essentials? Seriously this is a solved problem in 4e to the point I'd consider a PF martial class has a more complex character sheet than any of the Essentials Martial classes (Thief, Ranger (Archer or Two Weapon), Fighter (Sword + Board defender or Beatstick)), the eDruid (two at will combat options - druid hits and pet bites - with the encounter option being both), and elementalist sorceror.

A 1st level Fighter in Essentials has a four page character sheet. A 1st level wizard in 5e appears to have a 2 page character sheet.
 

Lord Zardoz

Explorer
Not pleased with it at all

The apparent implementation of the fighter is not an implementation that I like at all, especially considering how barebones / minimalist the basic ruleset seems to be.

The fighter as written right now is basically able to make attack rolls using his weapon. And not much else. Once in a while he can make an extra attack. His only tactical options are move, and attack.

I am sure that the fighter is mechanically balanced an that on a raw damage output comparison he is balanced. The downside is that there just does not seem to be a whole lot of room for customization. While it is dangerous to assume that this is the 'be all end all' for a fighter, it is pretty clear that the only thing you can do as a fighter is make attacks.

This is exactly the reason I fell in love with 4th edition. This is exactly the kind of character design I hate. It is also why I refuse to let D&D Essentials material into my campaign. I am convinced that most of the feats and backgrounds and traits that apply to fighters are going to amount to +X to damage or to attack if Y is true.

I know that some may say 'this is just early beta', but this is a very clear indication of the direction they want to go with this class. I am sure it will please everyone who was *ahem*, vocal about not liking the At Will / Encounter / Daily implementation that 4th Edition had. But I have some serious complaints about it.

The first is that the class as written is going to be extraordinarily vulnerable to min/max or hyper optimization through equipment. With only one tactical option that must be kept in balance, it wont be hard to come up with ways to hyper optimize it.

The second is that I am not at all sure how the designers avoid the old problem of high level play breaking down rather badly when other classes will likely gain more options as new sourcebooks are released.

I figure I have a strong chance of being wrong, but if the playtest materials are any indication, I am probably going to strongly dislike the basic / core portion of 5th edition.

END COMMUNICATION
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top