The Playtest Fighter

[Neonchameleon]

Hm, it would be interesting if the Fighter had a feature that gave him a bonus to any checks for physical contests or stunts during a battle - basically compensation for not using his bonus to weapon attacks and damage. Even something simple but profound like Advantage would be a huge incentive to wrestle monsters and smash up the set a bit.

This. If the fighter genuinely was better at stunting than other people then the claims "The fighter can stunt" would have some merit. But because of the bonusses to attack, the fighter has the highest opportunity cost for stunting and no significant bonusses for doing so. Which means that the fighter should be the class that is absolute least likely to stunt.

(The best stunters in DDN are rogues of course. Take 10 on opposed rolls really helps).

Speaking as someone who played a 1e Fighter for years (with Unearthed Arcana), a fighter who just hits things is fun, IF:

1) You do lots more damage than other people.
...
2) You can take a lot more damage than anyone else.

3) The difference is qualitative - or at least so high quantitative that it approaches qualitative. The 1st level fighter post UA was doing quantitatively more damage (+1 to hit/+2 damage) but this needed scaling up with Weapon Specialisation. With a longsword he'd attack half again as often as the cleric. In combat he was the mincing machine from hell and no one else in the party could touch him.

 

[Herschel]

In theory, you're absolutely right. There's nothing preventing a GM of any game system from adding things like stunts and action zones.

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?

If you have a power that does what you want to do, then use that power and describe it however you want. If you don't have a power that does what you want, try something different.

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?

1. It depends on teh situation.
2. In the case of one-offs, no. In fact you have powers to use as a comparative example.
3. If another character does that regularly, it's not a waste.

The more subtle factor is that human beings can only handle so many options at once. If you have one or two options, we're going to be looking for more. If you already have five or six, we're good to go on the option front.

Which is why powers are good. If you're limited in your scope, say a new player not sure what your character can do, powers give you ideas of all the cool stuff possible. Likewise if you're a new DM who isn't comfortable adjudicating ad-lib then the players still have interesting thinsg to do.

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.

Cheers!
Kinak

This is where you lose me. If a character is too focused on his sheet, what makes you think they'll be any more creative otherwise? Removing options in general won't make anyone more creative the creative types are still the creative types, those that aren't still aren't. It puts a greater burden on all players and DMs. In a perfect world every gamer is creative and every DM is great, but that's just not reality.

 

[B.T.]

I understand the need for a simple playstyle to appeal to new players, but that playstyle should be the exception and not the norm.

No, the simple fighter should be the default and then modular complexity should be added on top of it. This was the developers' stated design goal.

 

[Bran Mak Morn]

If you have a power that does what you want to do, then use that power and describe it however you want. If you don't have a power that does what you want, try something different.

I believe that this is very difficult to do. How can I throw something at the orc's chieftain eyes and get any advantage out of this action, without badly breaking the powers' structure the games has and make the Rogue with Sand in the Eyes looking madly at me and the DM?

Just thinking.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I believe that this is very difficult to do. How can I throw something at the orc's chieftain eyes and get any advantage out of this action, without badly breaking the powers' structure the games has and make the Rogue with Sand in the Eyes looking madly at me and the DM?

Just thinking.

By making your attempt to throw sand in the orc chieftain's eyes into a bluff check for combat advantage.

To quote (or paraphrase) GURPS "If sand in the eyes always worked then fighters would give up carrying swords and instead start carrying round bags of sand." Orcs fight dirty and sand in the eyes should not be a killer strategy - in fiction it's almost always a desperation ploy in one on one combat.

The idea that you should be able to make a called shot to a tiny target with an improvised weapon and have this appear to be actually better than using something designed for fighting that you practice with regularly despite it being a trite and cliched trick is not something that as a DM I would want to encourage in any game much this side of Wushu.

Now pushing over bookcases, throwing wine barrells or barrells of pitch, and the like are all things that the DM can easily manage. 4e has some of the best improvisation guidelines of any form of D&D on page 42 of the DMG or on the back of the DM screen. If you are stunting creatively so the rogue looks on thinking "Why didn't I think of that?" then the DM has very good guidance for such stunts.

And for the record, if there was some reason the sand was especially good for eyeing people with or I was feeling generous I'd probably allow the fighter to spend a minor to put down their sword, a minor to pick up a handful of sand, and a standard to throw it. Dex vs reflex and blind the orc chieftain for one round on a hit. Leaving the fighter standing there with no sword in hand. It still isn't a worthwhile option for a fighter except for a combo with the rogue. And the rogue shouldn't be looking daggers at you - a rogue's 'Sand in the eyes' power does blindness and damage.

 

[Herschel]

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.

 

[Walking Dad]

I believe that this is very difficult to do. How can I throw something at the orc's chieftain eyes and get any advantage out of this action, without badly breaking the powers' structure the games has and make the Rogue with Sand in the Eyes looking madly at me and the DM?

Just thinking.

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.

 

[Bran Mak Morn]

By making your attempt to throw sand in the orc chieftain's eyes into a bluff check for combat advantage.

To quote (or paraphrase) GURPS "If sand in the eyes always worked then fighters would give up carrying swords and instead start carrying round bags of sand." Orcs fight dirty and sand in the eyes should not be a killer strategy - in fiction it's almost always a desperation ploy in one on one combat.

The idea that you should be able to make a called shot to a tiny target with an improvised weapon and have this appear to be actually better than using something designed for fighting that you practice with regularly despite it being a trite and cliched trick is not something that as a DM I would want to encourage in any game much this side of Wushu.

Now pushing over bookcases, throwing wine barrells or barrells of pitch, and the like are all things that the DM can easily manage. 4e has some of the best improvisation guidelines of any form of D&D on page 42 of the DMG or on the back of the DM screen. If you are stunting creatively so the rogue looks on thinking "Why didn't I think of that?" then the DM has very good guidance for such stunts.

And for the record, if there was some reason the sand was especially good for eyeing people with or I was feeling generous I'd probably allow the fighter to spend a minor to put down their sword, a minor to pick up a handful of sand, and a standard to throw it. Dex vs reflex and blind the orc chieftain for one round on a hit. Leaving the fighter standing there with no sword in hand. It still isn't a worthwhile option for a fighter except for a combo with the rogue. And the rogue shouldn't be looking daggers at you - a rogue's 'Sand in the eyes' power does blindness and damage.

Thanks for replying Neonchameleon

We get very specific here and that was not my intention. I never liked the in combat bluff mechanic in 4E (bluff, is that a feint? Standard action do do a feint? Once per encounter? Throwing sand as bluff? Never hit my table, to be honest) but this is not my point nor it is important whether I like a specific mechanic or not.

Historically small advantages can have a huge impact on a battle or fight (sun in the eyes for the Germans at the Battle of Vercellae or the wet crossbows of the Genoans regiments at Crecy) but, again, this is not History, it's D&D, which I believe should not be a simulationist game.

I totally agree with you that being creative shouldn't be abused by players but I believe this is a separate issue.

What I mean is that the very nature of 4E is making improvisation not really comfortable. Page 42 of the DMG? Good one but what does it give me at the end of the day? Another way of dealing.... damage.

I have been a fervid player of all D&D editions, including 4E. In the long run I just felt that most 4E has done right was not repaying back what it took away in terms of imagination and fun.

On a separate note I am very looking forward to playtest!!!

 

[Kinak]

Which is why powers are good. If you're limited in your scope, say a new player not sure what your character can do, powers give you ideas of all the cool stuff possible. Likewise if you're a new DM who isn't comfortable adjudicating ad-lib then the players still have interesting things to do.

This I'll absolutely grant from the DM side. I've had too many new players trying to do cool stuff to grant it from the player side, though.

But, as I'm capable of making battles interesting (assuming I'm not likewise bogged down with inertia), powers just get in the way. I'll touch on why after the second quote.

For what it's worth, this isn't just a 4e problem. I'm not going to pretend 3rd and Pathfinder aren't stifling in their own ways. If a player wants to do something that's supposed to require a feat or skill or class ability, that's just awkward. I usually let them go for it, but then why do we have all these restrictions and powers in the first place?

This is where you lose me. If a character is too focused on his sheet, what makes you think they'll be any more creative otherwise? Removing options in general won't make anyone more creative the creative types are still the creative types, those that aren't still aren't. It puts a greater burden on all players and DMs. In a perfect world every gamer is creative and every DM is great, but that's just not reality.

In practice, I think that effects creativity because I've seen creative players stop innovating when presented with large numbers of pre-defined options. Theory tends to back that up. Humans only process through a very limited number of options at a time (analysis paralysis, etc.).

Now, if I'm having a tactical minis combat (be it OD&D, Warhammer, 3.0, Pathfinder, 4e, whatever), I want the focus to be on the map. I want everyone looking at the map for options. If they can't find them, that happens, but people will be more creative when they're hungry for more options than if they're already full to the gills.

In my experience, every player being creative is closer to reality than not. I'm picky about my players, but even the rejects wanted to play because they're getting something out of roleplaying that they can't get out of computer games, books, or movies.

There are other reasons to play, but being able to express creativity outside the bounds provided by a computer game, book, or movie are a big part of it. Granted, that creativity isn't always focused on combat, but even players I won't let in my game tend to be rather creative people.

Now I've also seen, disastrously as it turns out, that leaving a purely blank slate results in people seizing up. So I'm not suggesting 5e be a narrativist free-for-all, but a one page character sheet that says "if you can't come up with something creative to do, stab the nearest enemy in the face" is all a lot of my players need.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Plane Sailing]

I would have liked to see the playtest fighter with a couple of stances. I think the idea of stances from the 4e slayer worked really well. Mechanically in the new world you could choose a stance as a free action at the start of your turn perhaps. It would at least give even the 1st level fighter a couple of out of the box actions.

Just my preference though, it remains to be seen how it all eventually works out.

Cheers