What would a fighter versatile out of combat look like?

[Nagol]

If by "well-designed scenario" we mean "scenario designed to be challenging to D&D PCs having given suite of game-changing abilities", then it is practically tautologous that a well-designed scenario will take accoount of those abilities (and from memory this is the line that the 3E DMG runs).

If by "well-designed scenario" we mean "scenario that seems fit within the genre and promises to evoke the genre/thematic experience that high fantasy RPGers are looking for", then I am less persuaded that game-changing abilities can't ruin a well-designed scenario. For instance, negotiating with the god of death, or sneaking past him/her, to rescue a loved one who died before his/her time sounds like a reasonable scenario for high level fantasy PCs, but in a standard D&D game there is a risk that it degenerates into the PCs trying to bust through Hades teleport wards, which in play can tend not to be that epic.

I ran a similar scenario in 1e. Hades had tricked Artemis to sit in his chair of forgetfulness. The PCs got a visit from the head cleric of Artemis and asked to make a run to free her. The PCs had no illusions they were a match for the god of death in his demesne. They felt their only hope lay in stealth; they were somewhat incorrect in that I felt they were other non-confrontational ways to succeed, but stealth was certainly workable.

They felt trying to bust through a major god's defences in his home is likely both quixotic and career-limiting (in the sense that being permanently removed from play ends a career). This sentiment I agreed with.

I think some sort of balance is therefore required, between honouring the game's mechanical tradition and making room for genre/thematic appropriate scenarios. Personally I liked where 4e drew the balance, but I can see that D&Dnext is going back a bit more towards tradition. I don't have a strong sense if it goes as far in that direction as 3E did (which I personally find too far, and hence making good scenarios too hard to make work).

I see [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION]'s suggestions about divination as another way to try and strike the balance. My practical concern about that is that it still rests on a mechanical technique that is not that popular among the trad D&D crowd: simple rolls for stuff that is ancilliary to scenario (opposed Streetwise check, opposed Arcana check) and then complex resolution for the core stuff (the divination example, or searching the village house-to-house). This idea of scoping up or down based not on ingame complexity but at-table significance is a fine approach to RPG mechanics, but I think would be hard to successfully introduce into D&D. (Eg 4e's solo-standard-minion-swarm rules can be seen as a version of it for combat design - scope the monster based on at-table significance rather than ingame complexity - but they are rather contentious.)

As one in the "trad" crowd, scoping up works well for me when there are no consequences for failure. I will typically "scope up" random outdoor encounters when the group is traveling through areas which have encounter levels that pose no effective threat and go to narration of encounters unless the players wish to involve themselves. I'd almost certainly zoom out for followers doing a door-to-door search of a friendly town as well -- getting direction fro the PCs as to strategy and pattern and giving them opportunities to respond to hue and cry or other disturbances of note.

The problem with scoping up at other times is the systems used to determine consequence aren't built to change scale.

I adapted the Pathfinder mass-combat rules and it was well-received by the group as a scaling system. It left a lot of PC choice and consequence available which is why I think it worked. I found variants of skill challenges also accepted for general high-level action though I think the maths on the base system need to be more obvious to casual users.

 

[Nagol]

In a system where class determines skill, a fighter centric skill might help. I remember this being proposed earlier, with a "Warfare" skill that allows fighters to evaluate troops, identify COs, build fortifications, judge the quality of weapons, and the like. This might overlap with warlordy things like inspiring troops, identifying tactics, planning mass battles, and the like.

This gets trickier in a system like D&D5 where skills are detached from most classes and associated with backgrounds, and you don't want every fighter to be a master of warfare. But if every wizard gets Spellcraft and every rogue gets Thievery it could still be a bonus.

Still, it's easier not to think "what can fighters do?" and more "what can this fighter do?", and fix the problem on a character level rather than a class level. If a player chooses to double down on combat skills and not take anything useful the rest of the time then that's their prerogative.

It's certainly a prerogative if its an informed choice. I can easily see situations/group dynamics where in fact it is the most sensible option.

One helpful thing would be some discussion surrounding how play expectations change as characters level generally in the game and at a particular table.

 

[Quickleaf]

Wow, this is getting far afield from the fighter! I'm totally ok with that because what we're discussing is all very relevant to the oriignal question, and at a certain point you can't assert "the system would need to do X to support this class" and you need to define X. I'll see if I can steer us back to the fighter a bit...

If by "well-designed scenario" we mean "scenario that seems fit within the genre and promises to evoke the genre/thematic experience that high fantasy RPGers are looking for", then I am less persuaded that game-changing abilities can't ruin a well-designed scenario. For instance, negotiating with the god of death, or sneaking past him/her, to rescue a loved one who died before his/her time sounds like a reasonable scenario for high level fantasy PCs, but in a standard D&D game there is a risk that it degenerates into the PCs trying to bust through Hades teleport wards, which in play can tend not to be that epic.

I ran pretty much exactly that scenario in 2e with Planescape and there was no spell one-upsmanship/escalation with the god. Different system assumptions I guess...it sounds like you're referring to 3e D&D when you say "standard D&D game"?

I see [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION]'s suggestions about divination as another way to try and strike the balance. My practical concern about that is that it still rests on a mechanical technique that is not that popular among the trad D&D crowd: simple rolls for stuff that is ancilliary to scenario (opposed Streetwise check, opposed Arcana check) and then complex resolution for the core stuff (the divination example, or searching the village house-to-house). This idea of scoping up or down based not on ingame complexity but at-table significance is a fine approach to RPG mechanics, but I think would be hard to successfully introduce into D&D. (Eg 4e's solo-standard-minion-swarm rules can be seen as a version of it for combat design - scope the monster based on at-table significance rather than ingame complexity - but they are rather contentious.)

Do you mean to say you think my suggestion for Scry would not be popular among the traditional D&D crowd because it zooms in too much on the intricacies of spellcasting? And trad D&D players like abstracted spells? I'm not sure I follow.

In a system where class determines skill, a fighter centric skill might help. I remember this being proposed earlier, with a "Warfare" skill that allows fighters to evaluate troops, identify COs, build fortifications, judge the quality of weapons, and the like. This might overlap with warlordy things like inspiring troops, identifying tactics, planning mass battles, and the like.

Still, it's easier not to think "what can fighters do?" and more "what can this fighter do?", and fix the problem on a character level rather than a class level. If a player chooses to double down on combat skills and not take anything useful the rest of the time then that's their prerogative.

See, I absolutely think that combat functionality and non-combat functionality need to be siloed, otherwise you will always have rather boring combat machine PCs made by power gamers. I'm no saying thwart the power gamers completey, but maybe reign them in a bit and get them to explore some other fun rules bits. So a player who envisions their fighter as a swashbuckler doesn't need to take Warfare, and instead they might take Noble Ties.

What does not work is a system where instead of Warfare they could gain +2 damage to melee attacks. It creates an arms race between characters so that character creation/leveling becomes a question of a false trade off. In a game less combat focused than D&D maybe this could work, but in D&D combat is assumed and it's a big deal. Not having that +2 damage because you chose something more story/non-combat based means the games math has shifted...enough shifts like and you have imbalance in PCs ability to perform a core function: combat.

And there's another argument against being able to trade off Warfare for +2 damage, one I think is even more important. I learn nothing about the character from +2 damage, whereas from Warfare I now have creative ideas about possible backgrounds and it makes the player think about how they picked up that skill/ability. Is any player really going to do that for +2 damage? Heck no they won't.

As others have argued, fighters are often played by really skilled role-players who develop an important role in the party despite the class mechanics not backing them up (though in some editions mechanics in other parts of the game besides class might). The basic idea behind giving the fighter versatility outside of combat (and NOT letting that be traded off for combat effectiveness) is to provide rules that support those creative players who see fighters as a leader archetype (or whatver archetype they are imagining) and to encourage power-gamers to think beyond combat.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

See, I absolutely think that combat functionality and non-combat functionality need to be siloed, otherwise you will always have rather boring combat machine PCs made by power gamers. I'm no saying thwart the power gamers completey, but maybe reign them in a bit and get them to explore some other fun rules bits. So a player who envisions their fighter as a swashbuckler doesn't need to take Warfare, and instead they might take Noble Ties.

I tend to disagree. As an example, I'm running a Conspiracy-X game right now. One of the PCs started life as a combat machine. It quickly became apparent the campaign focus is more on investigation and exploration than combat. The character is still the best combatant in the group, but he has been expanding his versatility since increasing his combat capability is probably the worst way the player could improve the already over-capable PC. The best way to encourage versatile character design is to make it advantageous in the campaign.

What does not work is a system where instead of Warfare they could gain +2 damage to melee attacks. It creates an arms race between characters so that character creation/leveling becomes a question of a false trade off. In a game less combat focused than D&D maybe this could work, but in D&D combat is assumed and it's a big deal. Not having that +2 damage because you chose something more story/non-combat based means the games math has shifted...enough shifts like and you have imbalance in PCs ability to perform a core function: combat.

The way to make this work is as DM, don't engage in the arms race -- de-emphasize combat instead. If a PC is really good at combat then the unavoidable combats go faster and are less risky. There is limited incentive to get EVEN better once you are better than good enough AND other valid choices exist. 3.X is the most combat-focused of the editions I run; I think 4e is at least as combat focused, but I have limited experience with it. Earlier editions tend to be more capable of focusing on exploration/environment interaction.

 

[pemerton]

I ran pretty much exactly that scenario in 2e with Planescape and there was no spell one-upsmanship/escalation with the god. Different system assumptions I guess...it sounds like you're referring to 3e D&D when you say "standard D&D game"?

What level?

I don't have much 3E experience. I'm thinking of AD&D, and also Rolemaster which is fairly close to AD&D in its basic assumptions about the scope of fighters and the scope of wizards.

Do you mean to say you think my suggestion for Scry would not be popular among the traditional D&D crowd because it zooms in too much on the intricacies of spellcasting? And trad D&D players like abstracted spells?

I'm more thinking that for some things, that aren't story-central, you want to resolve via an opposed Streetwise check, but for other things that in the fiction might be very similar, but are story-central, you resolve in more detail.

(In the case of divination, I made an assumption that if it wasn't story-central you'd resolve it as opposed Arcana.)

 

[Quickleaf]

What level?

I don't have much 3E experience. I'm thinking of AD&D, and also Rolemaster which is fairly close to AD&D in its basic assumptions about the scope of fighters and the scope of wizards.

Phew, this was a while ago...the campaign ran from 1-13...the Hades quest was in the late middle and the dual-classed fighter/wizard had cone of cold (a 5th level spell IIRC)...so maybe 9th or 10th level.

Part of Planescape and 2e was that there were no stats for gods and it was obvious to the PCs that in a Pc-vs-god fight they'd lose. It was implicit in the setting and the system. But even more than that the adventure gave them ways to interact with the environment and denizens of Hades realm, even deceive Hades, without being plot coupons. There was never any "well you cannot teleport there because there's Anti-magic" or some such spell arms escalation like you were alluding to.

I'm more thinking that for some things, that aren't story-central, you want to resolve via an opposed Streetwise check, but for other things that in the fiction might be very similar, but are story-central, you resolve in more detail.

(In the case of divination, I made an assumption that if it wasn't story-central you'd resolve it as opposed Arcana.)

Ah, I see. Well, there is a middle ground here, and IME D&D home games play in that middle ground - that the DM will abstract tasks based on their story relevance has been the standard at every table I've sat at. For example, the version of Scry that I postulated. You can run thru the same procedure just in a much more accelerated "cleaner" way. I'll explain by way of example...

The wizard player wants to find a criminal known only as Smiling Quenz the party can pump for information about the BBEG. This is a completely player generated idea with no writeup in the adventure - it is a strategy that can succeed or failure without grinding the adventure to a halt. Deciding to cast the spell and getting the party to agree takes as long as it would normally.

First, the wizard explains he can scry on Smiling Quenz but needs his given name & a component connected to the criminal. The rogue PC does some digging with an Streetwise check and a bit of bribery and learns that Smiling Quenz's given name is actually Quentin Eugene, which she shares with the rest of the party with a snicker. This doesn't take more than 2 minutes real-time.

Second, the fighter chats up some of the alewenches at the tavern, drawing on a reputation talent, and it is revealed the fighter saved an alewench's brother on the field of battle back in the day. In gratitude the alewench offers a free tankard of their best, but instead the fighter asks if she would give him whatever she won beating Smiling Quenz at dice (a fact that came up during play). The talent lets the fighter recall this favor, and she gives it to him - it's none other than Smiling Quenz's favorite gold ring. The fighter shows it to the wizard who agrees that will do nicely. This doesn't take more than 2 minutes real-time.

Third, the wizard casts Scry and begins watching Quentin Eugene beating up a snitch in a hideout, hoping to learn some clue about where this hideout is. Now if this was central to the adventure the DM wouldn't give away the location necessarily, and would instead introduce another step...maybe the snitch lets something slip about burying the treasurer at Shady Grove. But in this case, since it's not central to the adventure, the DM spills the beans right away, revealing where the hideout is. This doesn't take more than 2 minutes.

So it's not just a question of abstraction but also how the DM interprets the rules and how difficult the DM makes things. I don't see why D&D players would object to handling Scry like that?

 

[Quickleaf]

The way to make this work is as DM, don't engage in the arms race -- de-emphasize combat instead. If a PC is really good at combat then the unavoidable combats go faster and are less risky. There is limited incentive to get EVEN better once you are better than good enough AND other valid choices exist. 3.X is the most combat-focused of the editions I run; I think 4e is at least as combat focused, but I have limited experience with it. Earlier editions tend to be more capable of focusing on exploration/environment interaction.

Absolutely agree with you about the burden being on the DM. But it's not only on the DM.

A system can support you as DM to run the kind of game you envision or it can work against you. A good DM can do just about anything with any system. That doesn't mean that it is easy or necessarily pleasant. That doesn't mean that the system is supporting the DM to run a game with lots of non-combat challenges. It's a systemic issue and, as you point out, systems in BD&D and 1e were lost to an extent in 3e and 4e.

My approach in my own house rules has been to explicitly put non-combat stuff into the classes - the classes being the main block of rules most D&D players care about and will actually pay attention to. But you could put that stuff elsewhere in the rules too.

The problem with not siloing combat / non-combat abilities (i.e. making them swappable) is that you can have situations of mixed game expectations and power gaming is facilitated. Now if you assume (a) perfect communication between players and DM, and (b) all players to be on best behavior a out power-gaming...well...that's a nice assumption. But it certainly doesn't map with my observations.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] Seeing the recent incarnation of the LF/QW or the "Fighters can't have nice things" thread made me think of another feature that the greatest martial competitors of our time possess; "inevitability".

Just as Dragon's have an Aura of Fear that can shake even the greatest of opponents, the greatest athletes (which is what Fighters) have their own presence, their own "aura of invincibility", that causes even world-class opponents to shrink. Consider the Bulls of the 1990s. Quite literally, Jordan's opponents were defeated the moment they got off the bus or at least by the time they stepped foot on the court. Consider Tiger on a Sunday before Elin Nordegren put a 5 iron through his rear windshield. Tiger didn't "win" most of his tournaments on Sunday (that is to say, he didn't dominate the course and post a low number). What routinely would happen is you would have the greatest golfers in the world shrinking under the weight of his inevitable triumph. Same thing with the Bulls. Same thing with Pete Sampras at Wimbledon blasting second serves by people and robotically walking to duece or luv court to do it over...and over...and over. Same thing with the 1980's Miami Hurricanes. Same thing when Mariano Rivera would toe the rubber in the 9th for the Yankees. Same thing with Tyson in the early early to mid 80s. Same thing with Chuck Liddel and Anderson Silva. The imposition of "inevitability", because of their presence, causing their opponents to wilt.

Inevitability. Inevitabilty as a weighty, palpable thing. A weighty, palpable thing that hangs in the air, crushing the will of (world-class mind you) challengers before the first blow is landed.

In a team sport, this presence, this aura of inevitability, also bulwarks the athelete's companions to "raise their game" far beyond what they would be capable of otherwise.

To make a long story short, Fighter's should get something like a Dragon's Fear Aura (perhaps with a component that escalates the longer combat goes, akin to the 13th Age Escalation Die), the Paladin's Aura of Courage, and the Bard's Aura of Skill Competence (or whatever). This wouldn't be a supernatural effect. We have this manifest in our, extremely mundane, existence regularly. Its a trivial thing to behold and understand given the gravity of the exemplars of this phenomenon that we have in the modern era (with the pervasiviness of media). There is no reason that a realm of high fantasy should have lesser exemplars of martial prowess and the gravity of presence in the arena of competition.

Basically, Fighter's should kill Dragons, Paladins, and Bards and take their aura stuff or have a non-supernatural analogue to their ability.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Basically, Fighter's should kill Dragons, Paladins, and Bards and take their aura stuff or have a non-supernatural analogue to their ability.

I don't think that stuff is bad. It's not based on a time-limited resource though; it's just always on because it reflects how awe-inspiring you are. In fact, that's one of the good things about auras: they're simple.

 

[Quickleaf]

To make a long story short, Fighter's should get something like a Dragon's Fear Aura (perhaps with a component that escalates the longer combat goes, akin to the 13th Age Escalation Die), the Paladin's Aura of Courage, and the Bard's Aura of Skill Competence (or whatever).

Hah, great examples, wasn't there a sports announcer in the 90's who coined the term "Full of Win" in reference to Jordan and the Bulls?

It is a a great idea, something that probably should fit in once a fighter is around "name" level or the equivalent.

One of the things about the Escalation Die is that it works best in a system where combats take several rounds, versus a system like 5e where (so I've heard) most combats are 1-2 round affairs.

BTW, Concurrent with this thread I've begun seriously writing up my own d20 rpg that addresses LF;QW from both ends of the spectrum: reigning in the "jack of all spells" from 3e (and using the 4e ritual model to handle longer casting time "heavy magic" stuff), while doing a total redesign of the fighter. While discussing how it could work in existing/future versions of D&D is interesting to me, but more than that I'm interested in devising a system which really embraces the concept as an underpinning of the rules and implied setting. I've looked to inspiration from 4e, BD&D, Dungeon World, 7th Sea, 13th Age, True20, Ars Magica, The One Ring, and other games.