Why I'm not worried about Fighter "options"

[Minigiant]

A maneuver system does a few things

1) It gives ideas. A maneuver system gives the player an assortment of ideas that the PC might use in combat. Contrary to popular belief, improvisation is not always easy. Hunger, exhaustion, and headaches can cause endless "I attack" spam.

2) It gives the players and DM an accepted starting point. If they use the tactical module, they know how disarm, shied bash, trip, etc works. If they use the narrative module, they know how disarm, shied bash, trip, etc works. Fewer fights later on. Is that not the point of the game: to establish agreed upon rules.

3) It unburdens the DM. By granting rules for special situations, it frees up the DM's mind for other aspects of the game.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I have never understood why folks act like the fighter (and by extension, other martial characters) are boring if they don't have several mechanically distinct combat abilities.

Because, while playing such a character, I want my decision tree in combat to be deeper than:

1. Who should I try to hit?

As far as your refluffing goes, I can do that with or without 4E-style AEDU abilities (cute "z" change in "powers," BTW), so I do not see that as a strength of combat in which my decision tree is one level deep.

 

[Dragoslav]

I like to call my attacks with more pizazz than "I attack," but I don't want to try to come up with and narrate some sophisticated martial maneuver every time I just want to hit something. I'm not a Medieval combat expert, so if I'm playing a fighter, I just want to let my character's stats do the talking for me. This is especially true if a battle is dragging out for too many rounds late in a session -- then I really will just say "I'm gonna hit that guy."

Also consider that in the earliest editions, a round of combat represented 1 minute in which your character is engaging an enemy, so this sort of narrative style isn't necessarily inherent in the system.

 

[LostSoul]

Player: I attack orc A. (Rolls 13to hit)(Rolls 8 damage)
DM: You hit. The orc is hurt.
Player: I make my shield bash (Rolls 20)(10 damage)
DM: Crit! You drop him

You can achieve highly complex and interactive combat simply by putting some narrative effort in:

DM: The orc swings high with his axe, but you are able to deflect it upward with your shield.
Player: Hmm, if his weapon is high... I stab at his lower torso, away from his axe (Rolls 13)(8 damage).
DM: Your sword makes a deep gash near his hip, and he hunkers to cover his wound...
Player: I come at his face with the leading edge of my shield (20, 10 damage).
DM: Your shield catches him directly in the windpipe, with a oddly clear crunching sound; he goes down with bubbling blood pouring down his chin.

Mechanically both systems are the same; the player gains no benefit by describing his action in detail. Which is fine. In my experience, without the system providing an incentive to describe your actions, players default to "I attack."

If you really want the system to support the second example, you need to give the fictional positions of the character - "Hmm, if is weapon is high..." - mechanical weight, e.g. a +2 bonus to the attack roll or something similar. You don't need that support, but it helps.

 

[billd91]

Mechanically both systems are the same; the player gains no benefit by describing his action in detail. Which is fine. In my experience, without the system providing an incentive to describe your actions, players default to "I attack."

If you really want the system to support the second example, you need to give the fictional positions of the character - "Hmm, if is weapon is high..." - mechanical weight, e.g. a +2 bonus to the attack roll or something similar. You don't need that support, but it helps.

I think you have a point in which a limited set of generic maneuvers that can lend themselves to a wide variety of narration can be useful. The combat maneuvers in Champions are a useful example. You might be hitting him with pre-punch wind-up, kicking with both feet, giving him a double handed chop to the sides a la Captain Kirk, but they're all still haymakers with specific implications for damage, your offense, and your defense.

I would argue, also, that in a case in which you include some variety with maneuvers, less is generally more. The simplicity and flexibility you gain by having just a few generic ones to remember and broadly apply makes for a better game than a super-detailed one with dozens of different options with subtle differences between them, even if you do get to select a small subset for each character.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have never understood why folks act like the fighter (and by extension, other martial characters) are boring if they don't have several mechanically distinct combat abilities.

I'm not a huge fan of combat detailed descriptions... in theory I should like them a lot, but IMXP after a couple of combats players get already tired by the descriptions which also become repetitive.

Personally I think that at least a small number of abilities or options are needed (in the sense that they should be defined in the rules) for the basic concepts beyond damaging such as disarming, tripping, grappling, sundering a weapon, shield bashing and pushing/pulling the opponent. IMHO it's good if the rules provide a standard way of doing these.

I liked the 3ed approach of making these "basic" abilities available to anyone who wanted to try (for the sake of verisimilitude, so that you aren't forced to tell a non-fighter "you cannot even try to disarm your opponent") but then making them so that the Fighter is the one who has the chance of learning to use these efficiently - eventually the problem of the 3ed Fighter was for me that she still doesn't get enough feats.

More Fighter-only special abilities in the game IMHO serve two main purposes:

1) They allow the player of a Fighter a different gaming experience compared to other classes, and also delivers a reason to stay single class

2) They allow differentiation between different Fighter characters, especially good if you have 2 in the same party but also nice if you play another Fighter in a different campaign

But that said, I don't really think these special abilities are needed to creative players, I think they are needed most to less-creative players. Truly creative players don't need lots of abilities defined, they can come up with lots of ideas even from a tiny pool of options.

 

[Grydan]

Take two players, Amanda and Bob. Amanda likes complex decision points, whereas Bob just likes to poke stuff with sharp objects (though he occasionally likes to describe how he does so in flowery language). Both prefer, story-wise, to play characters who are swordfighters. Neither wants to be a sneaky rogue, a mystical cleric, or a spellcasting wizard.

Given the fighter as it exists in the current 5E playtest, Bob can poke stuff with sharp objects and describe it in flowery language to his heart's content.

Amanda's screwed.

Given a 4E fighter, Amanda has all sorts of complex decision points available, both in the character building and advancing parts of the game, and in the combat part of the game.

Bob can still poke stuff with sharp objects, and describe it however he wants.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Just a quick headcount: The designers are planning to have the following systems for adjudicating actions in combat:

1. Pure DM fiat (Classic-1e style)
2. Simple maneuvers based on taking a penalty to hit and adding a rider effect (2e style)
3. Generic maneuvers based on tactical grid combat (3e style)
4. "Trained" maneuvers you can opt into (4e style)
5. Improvised maneuvers based on ability contests (5e style?)

Assuming the game ends up with all of these options (and doing them well), would that please all of you?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just a quick headcount: The designers are planning to have the following systems for adjudicating actions in combat:

1. Pure DM fiat (Classic-1e style)
2. Simple maneuvers based on taking a penalty to hit and adding a rider effect (2e style)
3. Generic maneuvers based on tactical grid combat (3e style)
4. "Trained" maneuvers you can opt into (4e style)
5. Improvised maneuvers based on ability contests (5e style?)

Assuming the game ends up with all of these options (and doing them well), would that please all of you?

Well, I only look at the edition numbers and I say it could work, but in the end, the specific implementations may matter.

 

[Grydan]

Just a quick headcount: The designers are planning to have the following systems for adjudicating actions in combat:

1. Pure DM fiat (Classic-1e style)
2. Simple maneuvers based on taking a penalty to hit and adding a rider effect (2e style)
3. Generic maneuvers based on tactical grid combat (3e style)
4. "Trained" maneuvers you can opt into (4e style)
5. Improvised maneuvers based on ability contests (5e style?)

Assuming the game ends up with all of these options (and doing them well), would that please all of you?

As [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION] says, it really depends on the implementation.

I expect that any "trained manoeuvres" option would tie up one's theme, and I'm not sure that I'm entirely on board with that.

They've bandied about the idea of giving Fighters two themes instead of one, which would compensate there, but seems to me to fall back into the 3E mindset of "fighters get the stuff that everyone else gets, they just get more of it", which doesn't exactly thrill me.

At this point, all we can do is wait and see (as well as continue to make our desires and opinions visible).

That said, I think the Fighter class as it currently exists simply needs SOMETHING more. I've already complained about its combat features, but it's also the only class in the playtest that has ZERO non-combat class features.

While skills have happily largely (Rogue aside) moved off into Backgrounds, putting the fighter on even footing for once, each of the other classes has features for combat, features for non-combat, and features that apply in both.

The fighter, meanwhile, has Weapon Focus.