What would a fighter versatile out of combat look like?

[Nagol]

One thing I rarely see discussed is what constitutes versatility depends on the possible actions available to other classes.

A versatile Fighter class in a mundane world may have options for command, esoteric knowledge depth, or advanced skills that are (almost) comparable to a master in any individual field of study.

When the possible actions of the other classes include detection of threat and reward (pretty much the whole divination school), movement capabilities (plane travel, 3-dimensional movement, teleportation, and magically enhanced running/jumping), environmental survival (water-breathing, environmental immunities), and a host of other capabilities out of reach of plausible non-magical devices (Fabricate, magic item creation, Magnificent Mansion, etc.) then versatility takes on other meanings.

At higher levels, access to several of the fore-mentioned abilities can, and in IMO should, be necessary for adventuring success. I suggest a class can only be considered versatile if the it is capable of achieving some success at achieving some of these abilities.

In many ways, the most versatile fighters I've DMed were under 1e. The versatility of characters existed to a large degree outside their class abilities and in magic items, henchmen and other hirelings, and world-based organisational allegiances.

Magic items were almost completely the result of successful campaigning and successful item creation was rare. Treasure placement is skewed to help Fighters and Magic-users had strong incentives to angle for shares that involved survivability or improved arcane power (spell books, scrolls, wands, and staves) over miscellaneous "everyman" usable objects like cubic gates or flying carpets. Likewise a character is more likely to look for complementary hench-folk over duplicating abilities the character provides.

Later editions fiddled with this balance with it breaking down under 3.X. The item creation rules, the magical item cost structure, and other default assumptions led to an environment where it is less likely the Fighter character will want to acquire versatility over further specialisation in direct combat.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]
That's very persipacious of you In a lot of ways I agree that 1e (as well as BD&D) did the fighter's non-combat utility more justice than 3e/4e because of the way rules were designed completely independent of class.

My thought is that if there's a rule for it (hirelings, magic item bonding, environemental survival, allegiances, and so on) then a character ability can be designed to interact with it.

For example, you mentioned threat detection. Rangers and rogues might interact with those rules thru scouting, spellcasters thru divination, and maybe fighters (and bards to some extent) thru "old contacts from the war." While in a settlement a fighter might be able to look up an old war buddy and access military reports...it would imply a different sort of information than what a scrying spell or scouting run, one with a topdown military slant, but that could be very useful in the right circumstances.

Funny how Barbarians got to be icons once they became a 3rd Ed class. They have way less history than Ranger, Rogue or Paladin.

Actually I was thinking of Gygax's 1e barbarian in Unearthed Arcana back in 1982 or thereabouts.

 

[Nagol]

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]
That's very persipacious of you In a lot of ways I agree that 1e (as well as BD&D) did the fighter's non-combat utility more justice than 3e/4e because of the way rules were designed completely independent of class.

My thought is that if there's a rule for it (hirelings, magic item bonding, environemental survival, allegiances, and so on) then a character ability can be designed to interact with it.

For example, you mentioned threat detection. Rangers and rogues might interact with those rules thru scouting, spellcasters thru divination, and maybe fighters (and bards to some extent) thru "old contacts from the war." While in a settlement a fighter might be able to look up an old war buddy and access military reports...it would imply a different sort of information than what a scrying spell or scouting run, one with a topdown military slant, but that could be very useful in the right circumstances.

And that's where we should hope versatility come in.

A wizard may prepare Discern Location to find the escaped prisoner tomorrow or the fighter with followers can organise a door-to-door search of the town and find him tonight.

The problem comes that many of the things higher-level groups depend on -- environmental immunities, non-standard movement, divinatory insight -- have few if any "mundane world" correspondencies especially given the default technology level of civilisation.

So you have to look at how other abilities can be mapped onto the fighter frame.

There are a few options:

• Make higher-level characters mythic in stature such as a running leap from a hill can take the fighter miles before landing
• Provide extra versatility outside the class structure (items, NPCs) and design the system such that choosing them does not impair specialty performance
• Increase the range of action the fighter player can take to affect the world sort of like how Buffy balances things with differing Drama Point allotments

Each has its downside.

 

[Quickleaf]

The problem comes that many of the things higher-level groups depend on -- environmental immunities, non-standard movement, divinatory insight -- have few if any "mundane world" correspondencies especially given the default technology level of civilisation.

So you have to look at how other abilities can be mapped onto the fighter frame.

There are a few options:

• Make higher-level characters mythic in stature such as a running leap from a hill can take the fighter miles before landing
• Provide extra versatility outside the class structure (items, NPCs) and design the system such that choosing them does not impair specialty performance
• Increase the range of action the fighter player can take to affect the world sort of like how Buffy balances things with differing Drama Point allotments

Each has its downside.

Well, there are some other ways to handle your examples.

1. The fighter doesn't need to be able to effectively teleport like a wizard, IF teleportation has dangers, and IF there are robust overland travel rules/guidelines which fighter abilities can interact with. Class parity doesn't need to be - nor should it be - on an exact one-for-one basis...that would be boring and rob some of the class niches. It's the overall parity that matters. So it's not about emulating teleportation, it is about giving the fighter meaningful different exploration options and ways to reframe scenes.

2. I agree with this, but think things outside class structure like magic items can also have aspects which are unlocked by class abilities. Imagine a magic Flametongue sword which anyone can use, but has a special "Devour Flames" defensive power unlockable by a fighter who makes it their bonded weapon.

3. I'm not familiar with Buffy but I think this has to do with scene reframing things like Perception and teleportation, right? I don't see a downside to having several classes including the fighter with such abilities.

 

[Nagol]

I agree each class' ability set should be unique and need not cover the whole continuum of "things that can be done'.

My thought experiment goes as follows: for any specific scenario, can a balanced group accomplish the mission? If we swap any class for any other is the mission still accomplishable albeit differently?

Suppose a mid to high level scenario calls for the PCs to discover the location of the big-bad, requires transport to his hidden lair deep in the pack ice of the Frozen Sea, and is expected to culminate in a battle in the villain's underwater complex.

With a balanced (or magic-heavy) group, that's fine and dandy. Some divinations to reveal the plot, a couple of others to narrow the field of action, a group transport, become immune to cold and able to breathe water and everyone is good to go.

Without the casters, it will proceed very differently.

If we assume little to no time pressure on the non-spellcasting group then the situation still looks possible.

Spy masters and information specialists may replace the divinations at the expense of time and resources.
Long-term overland/sea travel can replace the transport spell at the expense of time, risk, and resources.
Heavy winter gear covers the cold-weather problem during travel at some additional risk.

How do the non-spellcasters survive the icy water to reach the final confrontation? There's the rub. This is an impediment that mundane resources can't mitigate. Access to magic whether resources inside the group or provided by allies is necessary to attempt the mission.

The factors that act to shut down the non-spell caster are any obstacle that prevents forward action unless it is overcome and overcoming it lies inside the purview of magic.

• Getting to a castle floating in a cloud
• Getting to other planes of existence
• Surviving a hostile environment like underwater or in a firestorm

Now these things can be overcome by DM fiat in an adventure path situation, of course. One of more keys can be included in the scenario for each lock.

 

[Quickleaf]

Suppose a mid to high level scenario calls for the PCs to discover the location of the big-bad, requires transport to his hidden lair deep in the pack ice of the Frozen Sea, and is expected to culminate in a battle in the villain's underwater complex.

I see where you're going, but I wanted to point out that an adventure which makes those kinds of assumptions needs to provide a plot device for the PCs surviving in an airless frigid environment. What of there is no wizard? What if none of the spellcasters have "underwater breathing"? To assume that all parties will have the same scene re-framing capabilities is IMO an err of design (unless, of course, the classes are designed to all have the same scene reframing capabilities).

In general, if it's a requirement for the PCs to pass some obstacle for the adventure to proceed in a meaningful direction, I think success needs to be assumed and worked right into the adventure. That's not to say there couldn't be other solutions, though...for example, while beating the BBEG in his lair might be appealing, maybe there's an option to lure him onto land that requires putting an NPC's life at risk. It's the Adventurer's job to present at least some of those options.

The factors that act to shut down the non-spell caster are any obstacle that prevents forward action unless it is overcome and overcoming it lies inside the purview of magic.

Getting to a castle floating in a cloud
Getting to other planes of existence
Surviving a hostile environment like underwater or in a firestorm

I'm going to have some fun applying lateral thinking to reframe these high-level obstacles...

1. Cloud castle

The Ranger has the World Pillar Mountain talent letting him know the location of a magic mountain said to climb so high it touches the realm of the cloud giants; they need to take a longer treacherous journey (than the Wizard's mass fly spell), but the advantage is the BBEG won't necessarily see them coming.

The Paladin can consult his Celestial Allies who grant him and his companions the use of pegasi or celestial griffons if he is in good standing with his faith; if his faith is shaken he may need to perform an act of atonement or undertake a quest first.

The Rogue happens to have the Get In Anywhere talent and it's up to the player to come up with a story about how she managed to get into the cloud castle... However first the rogue will have to devise some means of getting a really long rope down to her companions, or otherwise help them find some means of getting up to the castle.

The Fighter has the Issue Epic Challenge challenge, which he can use to goad the BBEG to negotiate a mutually agreed location for a final violent confrontation. Even if the BBEG sends a lieutenant, all the fighter and companions need to do now is defeat the lieutenant and question him/her for information on how to enter the cloud castle.

2. Other Plane of Existence

The Ranger knows how to identify the Faerie Byways from natural signs and the general laws one must observe to reach the Plane of Faerie. There will be challenges along the way, however, but these challenges may also offer insights and tricks (true to fey lore) that help the heroes later on.

The Paladin's steed at high-level has gained the planeswalking ability, so getting into Faerie is as easy as going for a quick ride; he can take one companion with him but that's no more, and he won't be able to use his horse to leave Faerie for 24 hours...hopefully they don't need to travel to a fey realm where time is distorted!

The Rogue has the In Hot Water talent which lets her be taken by an extra planar creature who is angry with her or who wants her for some reason. Hopefully she can negotiate with her fey abductors long enough for the rest of her companions to arrive in Faerie, and there may be a price to her freedom, but at least she got to Faerie free of charge!

The Fighter might have the Champion of the Seldarine reputation reward for a service he performed for the Elf Queen that won her favor; calling on a favor, he makes a Reputation check to determine whether the Elf Queen helps him for free or if there's a price attached to her aid (and how steep it will be). Other classes could have this reward too, true, but the fighter would get bonus reputation rewards at high level.

3. Surviving Underwater

The high-level Ranger has the Survive Anywhere talent so this is a cakewalk for him, and the player comes up with the explanation of using a oxygen-emitting moss as a form of rebreather. The GM smiles, that's cool.

The Paladin draws on his Sustained by Faith talent which will let him get by without air, food, or water, but not forever and afterward he will be fatigued.

The Rogue uses her Just the Tool for the Job talent to pull out a hat of underwater breathing, the player nervously asking the GM who she stole it from. The GM calmly informs her there may be a high-level Elementalist who is rather put out with her now, and before the rogue can call upon the talent again she will need to resolve the situation with the Elementalist. Great. But she is underwater.

The Fighter draws on two talents to keep up with his companions, Epic Endurance and Delay Affliction. The first lets him achieve feats of free diving at a level that surpasses mortal limits, while the second lets him avoid having the pay the price if he starts drowning until after the fight...victory could cost the fighter his life, but it's better to die in battle.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'd give you 74 xp if I could [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION]. While those ideas won't work for a certain cross-section of the D&D populace, those are precisely the kind of abilities I typically have in mind when this conversation strikes up. It appears that you're likely inspired here by Fate Stargazer LoA. Designers could do far, far worse when looking for thematic cues for PC build tools that would get nonprimary spellcasters involved in epic level, noncombat conflict resolution.

Of course, that system is contingent upon abstract conflict resolution mechanics. I've said it before and I'll say it again here, one of the primary drivers of noncombat conflict resolution disparity between classes is the design ethos of strategic power plays and zoomed-in, granular (spatial and temporal) task resolution. Lower the ceiling on spellcasters or raise the ceiling on mundanes in terms of the "strategic" and the "power" of the strategic power play, and zoom out and abstract (temporal and spatial) the resolution of a task. Put them on similar, transparent resource schemes (eg d10 + 1d4 complication die for "power cosmic" and d8 for "tough as nails") and within the same conflict resolution framework. All of a sudden, relative parity is within reach.

 

[Nagol]

I see where you're going, but I wanted to point out that an adventure which makes those kinds of assumptions needs to provide a plot device for the PCs surviving in an airless frigid environment. What of there is no wizard? What if none of the spellcasters have "underwater breathing"? To assume that all parties will have the same scene re-framing capabilities is IMO an err of design (unless, of course, the classes are designed to all have the same scene reframing capabilities).

To be fair, if the group has a divine caster of any type, they have access to water breathing in 1e and 3.X; an arcane caster could also do it, but that is more problematic. 2e was more fiddly with the divine spheres and I have no idea how 4e handled such things.

In general, if it's a requirement for the PCs to pass some obstacle for the adventure to proceed in a meaningful direction, I think success needs to be assumed and worked right into the adventure. That's not to say there couldn't be other solutions, though...for example, while beating the BBEG in his lair might be appealing, maybe there's an option to lure him onto land that requires putting an NPC's life at risk. It's the Adventurer's job to present at least some of those options.

Like I wrote, it's always possible for the DM to include specific keys for the locks.

I'm going to have some fun applying lateral thinking to reframe these high-level obstacles...

<snip>

Mostly going the "mythic" route I see though there are a few "use allied resources" entries and the Rogue's player is using player actions rather than in-character assets. That pretty much matches my earlier list.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'd give you 74 xp if I could [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION]. While those ideas won't work for a certain cross-section of the D&D populace, those are precisely the kind of abilities I typically have in mind when this conversation strikes up. It appears that you're likely inspired here by Fate Stargazer LoA. Designers could do far, far worse when looking for thematic cues for PC build tools that would get nonprimary spellcasters involved in epic level, noncombat conflict resolution.

Hah, thanks. 74? Is that a magic number?

Actually, I've never really played FATE and I don't know what Stargazer is. Wait...does LoA stand for Legends of Anglerre? It's based on a comic series? I remember reading a review that made it sound fantastic but I know nothing about it. [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] I think mentioned that some of my ideas were like a "less creative version of FATE's keywords", so it sounds like something I should check out!

Of course, that system is contingent upon abstract conflict resolution mechanics. I've said it before and I'll say it again here, one of the primary drivers of noncombat conflict resolution disparity between classes is the design ethos of strategic power plays and zoomed-in, granular (spatial and temporal) task resolution. Lower the ceiling on spellcasters or raise the ceiling on mundanes in terms of the "strategic" and the "power" of the strategic power play, and zoom out and abstract (temporal and spatial) the resolution of a task. Put them on similar, transparent resource schemes (eg d10 + 1d4 complication die for "power cosmic" and d8 for "tough as nails") and within the same conflict resolution framework. All of a sudden, relative parity is within reach.

I was having a conversation with some folks on the Google+ Dungeon World group and a guy mentioned that in D&D players have an incredible amount of "murder agency" compared to other parts of the game. I think this is related to your point about abstraction.

I admitedly tend to get confused by conversations about "abstraction", since abstraction is a matter of degree and is happening all the time in a game. Even though combat seems to have become a matter of discrete attacks, in 2e and earlier an attack roll was meant to incorporate a series of parried blows, dodges, thrusts, and then a crucial moment where the attacker gets an opening. It was intended to be an abstraction.

Or even something like Raise Dead could be seen as an abstraction. What happens during the casting time of, what is it, an hour? Well, the caster is intoning magic words and gesturing over the body. D&D makes the judgment call that players don't want to play thru Raise Dead (presumably because it isn't interesting). A game could just as easily zoom in the focus (reduce abstraction) with Raise Dead to entail some sort of negotiation with the deity or even a HeroQuest style journey into the underworld (physically or in astral form) to guide the departed character back to the land of the living, with associated risks.

I tend to think control over the level of abstraction should be in the hands of group, weighted toward the GM having more control, but ultimately a conversation (of sorts). For example, a rogue player taking Get In Anywhere is saying "I want to be really good at infiltrating, but I still want to be able to play it out." The GM (thru rules thought out in advance) is essentially responding: "OK, but if you're doing part of the adventure by yourself we need to fast-forward that so we don't keep the other players waiting (or else run tandem challenges for a split party). So can we fast-forward now? We'll assume you succeeded, you can explain how, and then I'll get to introduce some complication...oh, and it will be you alone in the infiltration site until your allies get there on their own or with your help."

 

[pemerton]

The fighter doesn't need to be able to effectively teleport like a wizard, IF teleportation has dangers, and IF there are robust overland travel rules/guidelines which fighter abilities can interact with.

you mentioned threat detection. Rangers and rogues might interact with those rules thru scouting, spellcasters thru divination, and maybe fighters (and bards to some extent) thru "old contacts from the war." While in a settlement a fighter might be able to look up an old war buddy and access military reports

A wizard may prepare Discern Location to find the escaped prisoner tomorrow or the fighter with followers can organise a door-to-door search of the town and find him tonight.

I think [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has identified the difficulty facing these options for a wide part of the D&D audience - namely, that they do not like the changes to resolution mechanics that are required to make these viable.

For instance, resolving a teleport spell at the table - even one with classic D&D dangers - takes a couple of minutes. Resolving overland travel using traditional D&D mechanics can easily take more than a couple of minutes per day of travel.

Similarly, if having a fighter search a village house-to-house requires the player of the fighter to actually resolve that on a granular level, plotting his/her PC's movements on the town map and resolving the interaction with each inhabitant, it is going to take forever to play out even if in purely probabilistic terms it is equally efficient, and even if, in terms of ingame time, the fighter's search only takes a few hours while we give Discern Location a casting time of 1 day.

To make non-magical versatility in exploration viable at the table, mechanical traditions have to be departed from.

[*] Increase the range of action the fighter player can take to affect the world sort of like how Buffy balances things with differing Drama Point allotments[/LIST]

Each has its downside.

The attempt to balance fighters in combat along these lines turns out to have not been so popular. It may not be any more popular, for the D&D audience, if adapted to out-of-combat versatility.