D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Staffan]

Now that I'm home and looking at the rule, you can flee in almost any direction you want, the enemy(s) just get attacks on you. It just says you turn your back on the enemy and run, so it would have t be away from the big guy somehow. Otherwise your back isn't turned when you start moving away.

Withdrawal also says away.

So while it would be a poor choice, by the rules the above route would work. I'd go diagonally down and left, though, heading away from both.

My point is that by your interpretation, the fighter ought to be able to move past/away from the giant to the goblin, because he's going into melee. And then he should be able to Retreat from there and only get attacked by the goblin. And that makes no sense.

That's not what the rules say, though. If you retreat, it MUST be away from the guy in your are fighting, where if I move to the wizard, I can go forward past the guy I'm fighting.

As a DM I'd probably house rule in an attack against you as you leave to go to the wizard, but that's not the written rule.

You do recognize that the two pictures are basically the same situation, right? In one the fighter is leaving the giant to move on to the goblin, and in the other they're leaving the goblin to move to the wizard.

1e spellcasting worked the same way. Here is the rule.

I'm not arguing that you couldn't interrupt casting in 1e. I'm arguing that the initiative rules were convoluted enough that it's unclear when casting starts and ends. And in the light of this lack of clarity, it makes sense that people would come up with their own solutions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This topic is always fun. I'm sure this will go over wonderfully.

Why must we always frame it as "complexity = good?" Game design isn't so shallow. The community D&D is designed for isn't so shallow. Few things in this world are that shallow. Fighter simplicity is intentional design. It's not a flaw to be “fixed.”

To be fair, a lot of people on this thread seem to be framing it as "simplicity = good". That's no better.

To me the answer is to allow more complex versions of classes to sit alongside the simpler ones, and let players and tables choose what to allow. That way, everyone gets what they want. Fortunately, through the miracle of more than one 5e designer existing, we have that.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

If Draw Steel works better for you and the people you play with, then you should play it instead of ignoring the people who say they like the fighter as is. Because it always comes back to "some people say". Well, some people say a lot of things and the fighter isn't for everyone. I like pineapple on my pizza, a lot of people say it's terrible. For them it may be, fortunately nobody is forcing them to eat it, they aren't even forcing them to eat pizza in the first place.

But hasn't this horse been beaten to death enough? You don't like fighters, some people don't. Meanwhile I like fighters as do some of my players and I think it's a good thing that there is a relatively simple option for people to play.

You have made many assumptions about me, so let me clarify: I did not come here with the question I asked as any sort of "gotcha", but merely hoping for interesting design discussion adjecent to the topic at hand. Since this thread has a lot of people defending simple martial classes, I thought it may be very stimulating from design perspective to see how you tackle the complaints I have been keeping in mind when thinking about design for D&D myself. And I have to admit, it is rather disappointing and dishartening that the response amounts to trying to misconstruct my preferences for the games, mispresenting my argument and repeating "we NEED simple classes". Even Draw Steel I mentioned merely to challenge the idea we need simple classes because game will not be succesful if we're not giving everyone simple sword & board "I just attack" option, because it is an example of succesful game that avoided this issue by simply asking people to alter their expectations of what kind of character you can play in it. Which in itself is a design choice.

 

[AlViking]

You have made many assumptions about me, so let me clarify: I did not come here with the question I asked as any sort of "gotcha", but merely hoping for interesting design discussion adjecent to the topic at hand. Since this thread has a lot of people defending simple martial classes, I thought it may be very stimulating from design perspective to see how you tackle the complaints I have been keeping in mind when thinking about design for D&D myself. And I have to admit, it is rather disappointing and dishartening that the response amounts to trying to misconstruct my preferences for the games, mispresenting my argument and repeating "we NEED simple classes". Even Draw Steel I mentioned merely to challenge the idea we need simple classes because game will not be succesful if we're not giving everyone simple sword & board "I just attack" option, because it is an example of succesful game that avoided this issue by simply asking people to alter their expectations of what kind of character you can play in it. Which in itself is a design choice.

There is no way to "tackle" this complaint because people have been repeating the same complaint ad nauseum for most editions of D&D. Meanwhile fighters have always been and continue to be a popular class. It's not like you're lacking more complex characters in D&D but it depends on the desires of the player along with focus and tone of the game. There are games that focus more on tactical combat, some that abstract out combat to a much simpler level.

It will always be a compromise and all compromises leave some people unhappy. At a certain point people need to simply accept that the fighter is what it is for various reasons and if they want something else it may mean going to alternative rules. There's not a lot more to say about it.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

That also creates its own issue, namely that in 3.5 it was very common to complain that 1. Meele characters are so useless their magic weapons and items do everything for them (which lead to 5e removing ability to buy magic items) and 2. Nothing stops casters from picking up the same magic items and overshadow martials even more. you know, it's like in Marvel when they were creating Wolverine. Originally he was supposed to wear gauntlets that have retractable claws, until an artist or editor pointed out that anyone can just put them on and be Wolverine, which lead to the claws as we know them, being part of his adamantium skeleton.


Except the complaints I listed are things people are actively saying about martial classes, not assumptions. People come to this game to be cool heroes and are pissed that the only way to do that is to be a caster, when most of heroes in fantasy are able to be cool and heroic and do amazing things without being magic users. They want that and then come to play a Fighter or Rogue and are frustrated they do the same thing each turn, have no strategy to use aside "swing weapon" and do not feel like growing in power at all, while casters do.

If you can find a way to solve these issues without increasing complexity, then I'd be interested.

Also, I like to look at Draw Steel, which is already very succesful and effectively has no real "simple" class and Matt Colville even spoke how, even if you play a meele class, this is not a game where you play a regular dude with sword & board, you play the likes of Hercules, Samson or Cu Chulain and the mechanics are reflecting that. And it seems to be working pretty well.

You say “if you can solve it without complexity, I’m listening.” But there is nothing to solve. There is nothing to fix. This is all intentional. It's intentional game design meant to be accessible to a broad market.

And then there is this issue, you can't solve it with complexity even if you wanted. Some people want tactical depth, some want cinematic power, some want a simple on-ramp. And than there are some others who want casters all the way down. So no matter what you do, there will be real people voicing real complaints about your path forward.

Draw Steel works because it isn’t trying to be D&D. Different target, different assumptions, different design goals. Colville is up front about that. He never was aiming at the broadest possible player base. He never cared if real people didn't like it. He even says in a recent video, directed at real people, play another system if Draw Steel isn't for you.

People point to these third parties, to independent publishers. They rave about their bravery, committing to their niche and embracing thematic rules and systems. Committing to things that WotC never would. Eviscerating the blandness that plagues D&D. But it all misses the intentionality of WotC's decisions. None of those other publishers are doing what WotC is. They can be complex, they can be deadly, they can appeal to small audiences. They can do these things because they aren't aiming at the same target.

Micah had a good thought here;

To me the answer is to allow more complex versions of classes to sit alongside the simpler ones, and let players and tables choose what to allow. That way, everyone gets what they want. Fortunately, through the miracle of more than one 5e designer existing, we have that

WotC left the complexity to third parties like Level up. This keeps them from having to commit, while letting them benefit from having the best of both worlds. It was the only way. The best path for WotC was to error on the side of simple, and let other publishers pick up the slack.

They get the benefits of a simpler game, while profiting off third parties adding complexity. WotC is doing an awful lot of winning in this set up.

 

[CreamCloud0]

This topic is always fun. I'm sure this will go over wonderfully.

Why must we always frame it as "complexity = good?" Game design isn't so shallow. The community D&D is designed for isn't so shallow. Few things in this world are that shallow. Fighter simplicity is intentional design. It's not a flaw to be “fixed.”

Once we accept that the simplicity is intentional, our options are limited. How can we placate the subset of the community hellbent on tactical depth at every turn, while weighing the desires of the subset that wishes for simplicity, and for the new players that often desire or need that same simplicity?

We have but a few options. None will make everyone happy. We can bolt on subsystems (like weapon masteries), we can completely reframe what fighter turns look like (like 4e), or we can accept that some players will find fighters boring. On these very forums, we have seen time and time again, that the subsystem WotC tried is polarizing. On these very forums, we have seen time and time again, that reimagining fighter turns, like 4e, is polarizing. Even on forums full of the most enfranchised of the enfranchised, these options are polarizing.

And the real issue is; there’s no evidence the broader community actually wants a more complex fighters. It makes sense that Enworld is more in favor of such changes, as we are more enfranchised. In other games, such as Magic the Gathering, designers reference this all the time. Enfranchised players want more complexity than is healthy for the game. A simple trip to Mark Rosewater's blog makes this evident, as he beats this drum relentlessly.

And so, there’s real risk that if we push complexity too hard, we burn away the simple classes and raise the barrier of entry for new players. We do exactly what terrifies MTG designers, while pretending it's all upside here. We choke off the very thing that makes the game sustainable, it's new players at the source.

So the argument is simple. You need simple classes. You need simplicity. If you don't you cause harm to the game. So chasing a more complex fighter is a fool's errand and WotC is correct to do so very carefully, if at all.

Why must we always frame it as ‘simple = good’? There is no good reason in my eyes that the fighter must bear this albatross and white elephant of being ‘player’s first class’, fighter embodies archetypes that are far more than just the big dumb hit it with a stick class and deserves to have the mechanics to play them properly, forcing it to be ‘the simple class’ is a ball and chain on it’s potential that drags the entire class down,

it is far harder to make a simple class play complex than to make a complex class play simple, give base fighter manoeuvres and in the champion subclass say ‘here are the two manoeuvres you will ever have to care about, they are very simple, this one lets you hit better when you miss, and this one lets you defend better when you get hit’ and then, we add the dumb as rocks for newbies subclass idea to a bunch more classes as newbies shouldn’t be forced into a specific archetype either just because it’s the only option designed for learning the ropes with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You have made many assumptions about me, so let me clarify: I did not come here with the question I asked as any sort of "gotcha", but merely hoping for interesting design discussion adjecent to the topic at hand. Since this thread has a lot of people defending simple martial classes, I thought it may be very stimulating from design perspective to see how you tackle the complaints I have been keeping in mind when thinking about design for D&D myself. And I have to admit, it is rather disappointing and dishartening that the response amounts to trying to misconstruct my preferences for the games, mispresenting my argument and repeating "we NEED simple classes". Even Draw Steel I mentioned merely to challenge the idea we need simple classes because game will not be succesful if we're not giving everyone simple sword & board "I just attack" option, because it is an example of succesful game that avoided this issue by simply asking people to alter their expectations of what kind of character you can play in it. Which in itself is a design choice.

That's true. None of Level Up's classes are simple by WotC standards of what that means, and I very much include the Level Up fighter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why must we always frame it as ‘simple = good’? There is no good reason in my eyes that the fighter must bear this albatross and white elephant of being ‘player’s first class’, fighter embodies archetypes that are far more than just the big dumb hit it with a stick class and deserves to have the mechanics to play them properly, forcing it to be ‘the simple class’ is a ball and chain on it’s potential that drags the entire class down,

it is far harder to make a simple class play complex than to make a complex class play simple, give base fighter manoeuvres and in the champion subclass say ‘here are the two manoeuvres you will ever have to care about, they are very simple, this one lets you hit better when you miss, and this one lets you defend better when you get hit’ and then, we add the dumb as rocks for newbies subclass idea to a bunch more classes as newbies shouldn’t be forced into a specific archetype either just because it’s the only option designed for learning the ropes with.

Agreed, which is why IMO individual tables unhappy with WotC's class selection (and believe me, I get it) should find one or more of the more complex fighters out there and add them to their game.