D&D 5E Things that the non-magical Fighter could do

[Bluenose]

Or half-elves who had slightly better level limits.

I seem to remember Gnome Fighter/illusionist was legal too.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not necessarily a problem though. After all, the action economy may be one of the things that naturally keeps the character from being radically overpowered. In some circumstances, 3.0 haste could allow very powerful combinations of attacking and spellcasting.

And even more powerful combinations of double spellcasting.

And, of course, one of the distinctive features of spellcasting is that two different spellcasters with the exact same basic statistics could be radically different in functionality simply by their spell selection; you could have a sage or a hedge wizard who can't even fight and just throws up his hands if anyone attacks him, or you could have someone who's trying to bend reality and take over the world.

This doesn't apply in 3.X, however (unless you are playing a sorcerer or bard). If we imagine the standard battlemage to be Rambo then the hedge wizard who can't even fight is Rambo the Pacifist at the beginning of Rambo III - all he needs to turn into the engine of destruction Rambo that everyone knows is motivation and access to a small armoury (i.e. a few scrolls or a spellbook to learn combat spells from). And a cleric or druid doesn't even need that; they just need to wake up cranky one morning and pick their spells for combat.

I take it as given that players would choose flexibility over balance every time, if given that choice. The only reason we have any balance at all is that it isn't always a dichotomous choice, and because of legacy elements that still carry forward from the game's wargame heritage.

And I consider this to be (a) sheer nonsense and (b) something that should have been offered to the martial characters as well (and was in both 4e and RC).

Even within the extant D&D framework, skills are much more balanced than spells; they have to be. An enormous amount of conceptual space is being funneled into one relatively small piece of skill text, and that skill is going to be usable by most or all characters very frequently, and won't be changed a whole lot by future supplements. So it has to be done right. And most of them were.

In 4e, yes. But that's because 4e was the third mainstream iteration D&D came up with. Non-weapon proficiencies weren't a good skill system. And as for the 3.0/3.5 skill system that meant that a fighter needed three skills for climb, jump, and swim, had skills ranging from the broken Diplomacy skill to Use Rope, and had so many skills that the skill list made you barely competent at most things, nope.

More than anything else, the class-based approach is simply tradition, and like any other sacred cow, I think it's days are numbered. Maybe a large number, but a number nonetheless.

The problem here is that D&D has never done classes very well since the addition of the thief in Supplement 1: Greyhawk, and 3.X multiclassing gave up all the good parts of having a class system. 4E classes were pretty good, but if you want to see a class system done right try to track down the old playtest version of Apocalypse World: The Dark Age (or just get your hands on Apocalypse World). Those are what classes should be.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I seem to remember Gnome Fighter/illusionist was legal too.

Yeah but RAW couldn't wear Elven Chain which made them harder to get viable in the low-mid levels where most people played 2E - though eventually high-end Bracers of Defense and Ring of Protection could get you to a really good AC if you weren't fighting a single-class Mage for them!

Or the DM could just let you wear armour up to chain or whatever (many did).

 

[CM]

Hmm, what if they gave the Fighter the ability to really summon up a lot of fighting spirit and attack everything in front of him for a set amount of damage, say 3d6, with half that much on a miss. Start him out with 2 uses of the ability per long rest, but give him more uses and crank up the damage as he levels up.

We can call it: Burning Hands.

BLASPHEMY! (j/k)

 

[Chaltab]

That's wrong on two levels. First the premise is wrong. There's no evidence that any particular class or choice is that much different from another. The available spread of options has always been and remains a real and intriguing choice. Except possibly bards.

It's not about the spread of options. It's about the spread of the effects of those options. Having options is all well and good, but when those options produce the vast gulfs in power between characters, then something is clearly not working.

However, even if it wasn't, I'd say players would still want that choice. On the micro level, many players dive in to opportunities to spend character creation resources on things that are useless to fighting or even adventuring, simply to detail their character. In 2e, it was some of the chintzier NWPs. In 3e, it expanded to things like Perform and Profession. And, of course, one of the distinctive features of spellcasting is that two different spellcasters with the exact same basic statistics could be radically different in functionality simply by their spell selection; you could have a sage or a hedge wizard who can't even fight and just throws up his hands if anyone attacks him, or you could have someone who's trying to bend reality and take over the world.

Again, not something exclusive to 3rd Edition. And 4E and DDN both add the ability to play multiple completely different versions of martial characters based on exploit selection and subclass. Options in a vacuum mean nothing if the results are a barely-functional character, or a competent character who is nevertheless overshadowed by the guy who can bend reality.

I take it as given that players would choose flexibility over balance every time, if given that choice. The only reason we have any balance at all is that it isn't always a dichotomous choice, and because of legacy elements that still carry forward from the game's wargame heritage.

Based on what? Clearly a lot of people value balance. Your own preferences are not an excuse to take it as a given. Not everyone is you.

Yes, and that's a problem. Like I said, you can't unring the bell. Once you tell players that they can make a tauric halfling blink dog or a rogue/warlock hybrid or a noncombatant aristocrat and so on and so forth, I don't think they'll take no for an answer. Mine certainly wouldn't.

I... I don't think there's anything I can say in response to this.

Depends on what kind of balance you're talking about. Designing abilities independently from the characters that use them allows them to be very balanced in a broader context.

Even within the extant D&D framework, skills are much more balanced than spells; they have to be. An enormous amount of conceptual space is being funneled into one relatively small piece of skill text, and that skill is going to be usable by most or all characters very frequently, and won't be changed a whole lot by future supplements. So it has to be done right. And most of them were.

The skills perhaps; the allotment of skill points by class not so much.

Conversely, spells (or, in the broader sense, exception-based mechanical abilities) create new conceptual space with each added spell (exception). They proliferate endlessly and instead of being balanced functionally by examining the practical utility of what they do, they're balanced largely by precedent (the DMG and other sources even say this explicitly), which naturally leads to power creep because precedent is boring, and brings and unreasonable degree of system mastery to the table. In some cases, it leads to blatantly unbalanced abilities that were designed to fill a niche without sufficient regard for their implications in the game world.

It's why 4e, despite having shoehorned characters into such a rigid mechanical framework, is so unbalanced.

And still somehow an order of magnitude more balanced than the edition you prefer. But honestly balance between abilities is not as important as balance between the classes. As you said, options and freedom are the quintessential D&D thing, and I honestly don't care if one class has an overpowered level 7 Daily because the classes are still all contributing to an encounter.

Never say never. It certainly isn't now, but the merits of my thinking exist independently of whatever a company like WotC does. Boundaries, niches, and exceptions are inherently problematic, and consolidated, universal design makes sense. More than anything else, the class-based approach is simply tradition, and like any other sacred cow, I think it's days are numbered. Maybe a large number, but a number nonetheless.

Play something else. Seriously: why limit yourself to D&D when it's clear that the most basic design decisions of the game are the exact opposite of what you want?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Options in a vacuum mean nothing if the results are a barely-functional character, or a competent character who is nevertheless overshadowed by the guy who can bend reality.

A pure hypothetical, though. There aren't really any such cases where one type of character is overshadowed by another on that scale. If there were, it still would probably be fine if it were justified appropriately.

Based on what? Clearly a lot of people value balance.

I don't think that's clear at all. I think a few people understand balance, and most of them that do don't care much about it. Conversely, a lot of people use the term as an edition-warring tool.

I... I don't think there's anything I can say in response to this.

Why not? This is how a discussion works: you make a point, someone else makes a counterpoint?

Ah, never mind.

The skills perhaps; the allotment of skill points by class not so much.

Very possibly not.

As you said, options and freedom are the quintessential D&D thing, and I honestly don't care if one class has an overpowered level 7 Daily because the classes are still all contributing to an encounter.

You also apparently don't care if all of them are equally over/underpowered.

Play something else. Seriously: why limit yourself to D&D when it's clear that the most basic design decisions of the game are the exact opposite of what you want?

Am I limiting myself to D&D? I don't recall doing that.

The design decisions of the current WotC staff, assuming that there are any decisions as opposed to just random flailing about, yes I don't agree with. However, there is ample support within published D&D for what I do. I just happen to think that one particular vision that's been expressed within D&D is better than the others, and that it should carry forward.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Now that I recall, the other big area for the nonmagical fighter is ability damage. It's a possibility that 3e failed to leverage and that they've moved completely away from since then. However, the idea of using existing mechanics to represent the impact of hits rather than creating a new wound system is awfully compelling. There's no reason a concussion couldn't deal Wis damage or that you couldn't hamstring someone for some Dex damage or pierce some vital organ for Con damage. There's also no reason a skilled fighter couldn't jack up the chance of that happening or do it in a more targeted way.

 

[Dausuul]

IMO, the fighter's abilities should be primarily focused on fighting. They are combat specialists, hence the name. That isn't to say a fighter should be a useless lump off the battlefield, but as a rule, anything the fighter can do off the battlefield, some other class can do better. However, when it comes to turning big ugly monsters into ground chuck, no one should be able to touch the fighter. (The wizard might be able to outdo the fighter in sweeping the chaff off the battlefield, but where non-mook foes are concerned, the fighter should be king.)

I like a lot of the combat abilities that have been proposed--especially Climb Aboard, which is something melee PCs want to do any time they're confronted with a big flying monster *cough*dragon*cough*, and which never seems to get any rules support. I always end up having to improvise house rules for it. I also like having fighters be good at disrupting enemy attacks and spellcasting.

The real challenge is figuring out how to make fighter abilities that are good enough to see frequent use, but aren't no-brainers to be used every single round. 4E solved the problem by fiat: You only use this ability once an encounter because you can only use it once an encounter. I would prefer something tied a little more closely to the game world. For example:

You have maneuver slots numbered 1 through 6. Each slot can contain up to four maneuvers. You start knowing three maneuvers, and learn a new one each time you gain a level. When you learn a maneuver, add it to one of your slots. You can learn the same maneuver up to three times, putting it in a different slot each time.

Opportunistic Tactics: As a bonus action, you focus on an enemy and look for an opening to use one of your maneuvers. Roll 1d6. Until the end of your turn, you can use any maneuver in that slot against the chosen enemy.

 

[Chaltab]

A pure hypothetical, though. There aren't really any such cases where one type of character is overshadowed by another on that scale. If there were, it still would probably be fine if it were justified appropriately.

I think you played a different 3rd Edition than the rest of us.

I don't think that's clear at all. I think a few people understand balance, and most of them that do don't care much about it. Conversely, a lot of people use the term as an edition-warring tool.

That's rich coming from you, who seems to like 3rd Edition to the exclusion of all others, and like it for things that D&D was not really meant to do and didn't do well or at all in prior and subsequent editions.

Why not? This is how a discussion works: you make a point, someone else makes a counterpoint?

Your group is your group. The fact that they 'won't accept' a more limited palette of choices says a lot about your group, but not quite as much about whether a robust palette is better, or if the options thereon are any good.

Very possibly not.

I can't argue with that logic.

You also apparently don't care if all of them are equally over/underpowered.

I think you might want to reread this sentence and think about what you just said.

Am I limiting myself to D&D? I don't recall doing that.

Good, good. Of course perhaps we could also limit our criticisms of D&D Next to things that are actually flaws instead of the design decis--

The design decisions of the current WotC staff, assuming that there are any decisions as opposed to just random flailing about, yes I don't agree with.

Or not.

However, there is ample support within published D&D for what I do. I just happen to think that one particular vision that's been expressed within D&D is better than the others, and that it should carry forward.

Let me tell you about a game called Pathfinder.

 

[Ahnehnois]

That's rich coming from you, who seems to like 3rd Edition to the exclusion of all others, and like it for things that D&D was not really meant to do and didn't do well or at all in prior and subsequent editions.

What was D&D meant to do exactly? I don't take it as given that it was meant to create endless bookwork or enforce a particular gameplay experience on its participants.

I like 3e better than all the others, but I have plenty of criticisms of 3e, and there are things I like better about 2e and various non-D&D rpgs.

I think you might want to reread this sentence and think about what you just said.

If one character class, or even one smaller mechanic, is not in itself balanced, if it doesn't fit within the context of the game world, it can't be compared meaningfully to other things. This is the (a) problem with 4e; it's core assumptions are so unbalanced that comparing elements within PC options is meaningless. It's moving in that direction with 5e.

Let me tell you about a game called Pathfinder.

A nice positive development in some ways, but also one that doesn't really fix a lot of the legacy issues and has taken some offbeat directions of its own. PF is most certainly a game that is being carried forward, and it is the best thing in stores at the moment, but it is not my game.