# Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th



## Gundark (Apr 30, 2012)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Fighter Design Goals)

Discuss


----------



## Raith5 (Apr 30, 2012)

*Design Goal 6: "A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal". This is all I needed to hear!*


----------



## patrick y. (Apr 30, 2012)

> 2. The Fighter Draws on Training and Experience, not Magic
> 
> Fighters master mundane tactics and weapon skills. They don’t need spells or some sort of external source of magical power to succeed. Fighters do stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals. They don’t reverse gravity or shoot beams of energy.
> 
> ...




This bit right here is the absolute key point they've got to keep in mind. Mundane is fine, so long as it's recognized that mundane in a world of dragons, giants, demi-gods, and demons is _not_ the same as mundane here on planet reality. From mid levels on up, a fighter needs to be a ridiculous killing machine that makes Rambo feel like an underachiever, and leaves Captain American wondering if he's been slacking at the gym.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2012)

I do hope they also keep the fighter relatively simple to play, or at least _potentially_ so. There need to be some classes that a beginning can pick up in a matter of minutes, and fighters A) have always been, and B) are thematically best suited, to such a thing.

Not saying they can't have plenty of options, like martial maneuvers. Just that they shouldn't _require_ them.


----------



## keterys (Apr 30, 2012)

It's an interesting gauntlet to throw out that you want one class to be the best in combat.

Especially when history has largely shown it to be one of the worst, up until now.

Perhaps the caveats will help - perhaps the rogue does more damage, while darting around the battlefield, but is much less tough. Perhaps he is comparing the fighter to the wizard or cleric over the long haul, rather than in the first several rounds of each day.

Perhaps it'll be an interesting ride to find out as the playtest unwinds. Very, very slowly.


----------



## BobTheNob (Apr 30, 2012)

*1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting!*
Thank You!!!!


----------



## am181d (Apr 30, 2012)

I wonder:

There's an implication that fighters at high levels will be able to take on hordes of enemies. That suggests a whirlwind attack type option. Maybe make a single attack roll against all adjacent opponents?

Also, when talking about wizards, Mearls mentioned that they can't cast their biggest spells every round. I imagine that he's PROBABLY just talking about running out of spells, but I wonder if there might be a recharge rule in effect for higher level spells. It'd be an interesting option if you could only cast your most powerful spells once every few rounds. That would certainly help to keep damage outputs more in step...


----------



## MortalPlague (Apr 30, 2012)

There was also a bit of interesting playtest information at the top...  Only pregens out the gate?  I was hoping to dive into 5th Edition playtesting by running a two-day pirates game with my friends.  Now it looks like I'll need to hold off until the character creation guidelines are up.

Still, I'm absolutely stoked to try out the new rules.

On the topic at hand, I'm not seeing anything I dislike about the fighter.  I'll echo the sentiment that some others have raised; I hope they give him his fair share of skills.  Either that, or let background and theme handle skills.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 30, 2012)

I express the following concern simply because previous editions have never made it an option with the core rules.

I like heavily armored, tough fighters, but I also want lightly armored agile fighters, and even unarmored magically-enhanced fighters, to be viable options from the start of the game. If you're in a desert or at sea, you should still be able to hold your own as a fighter without needing heavy armor. If you want to make a character who uses a little magic to enhance your combat abilities, you should be able to give a heavily armored fighter a solid challenge.

They haven't said anything explicitly to imply you _can't_ do that, but I've yet to see it work in earlier editions.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Apr 30, 2012)

MortalPlague said:


> There was also a bit of interesting playtest information at the top...  Only pregens out the gate?  I was hoping to dive into 5th Edition playtesting by running a two-day pirates game with my friends.  Now it looks like I'll need to hold off until the character creation guidelines are up.




I was hoping for the same thing, but in the end I think it's a very good sign that this isn't even a beta test, but more like an "alpha test."  It signals to me that our opinion and input does matter, and that the development time isn't so short that the playtest is a formality.


----------



## MortalPlague (Apr 30, 2012)

LightPhoenix said:


> I was hoping for the same thing, but in the end I think it's a very good sign that this isn't even a beta test, but more like an "alpha test."  It signals to me that our opinion and input does matter, and that the development time isn't so short that the playtest is a formality.




That's a good point.  Also, Mike Mearls' point about testing all the broad things first makes a lot of sense.  It's hard to figure out how the game plays in a general sense if all the feedback is about how one particular feat is broken, or how one build is totally lame.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Apr 30, 2012)

1. Makes me a little nervous, there being some balance issues with one class being better than others at combat as opposed to everybody being good at combat in their own way.
2. This is pretty standard, though when the game stops being mundane Fighters should transcend being mundane
3. Hell yea
4. I'd actually like to see this, and I'll believe it when I see it. Customizable character creation seems to inevitably results in people focusing on doing one thing well at the expense of everything else. The only way I see this truly happening is giving Fighters competence in their non-specialized style for freee.
5. This one kind of confusing, not sure what they mean. It makes me think back to 2E when the Fighter's HP and AC were at lot higher compared to everything else than they tended to be in 3E and 4E. In 2E and earlier, the Fighter didn't just have the best numbers, it wasn't even close.
6. *YesYesYesYesYesYeesYesYesYesYesYes*

Should have been on the list

(7.) Fighters should be awesome outside of combat. Its been said before, and it should be repeated until Mike Mearls' ears bleed.

(8.) Fighters shoudn't be boring. Fighters shouldn't have to spam the same thing every turn because its all they are.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 30, 2012)

I'm more interested in the playtest info.  The fighter stuff just confirms what we'd already figured out.

So, from this, we know that the playtest packet due in May isn't really more than a "play this adventure for us."  Exactly what I didn't want to hear.  So, like before, they're going to let us actually have the rules when it's too late to have input on them?


----------



## am181d (Apr 30, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> I like heavily armored, tough fighters, but I also want lightly armored agile fighters, and even unarmored magically-enhanced fighters, to be viable options from the start of the game. If you're in a desert or at sea, you should still be able to hold your own as a fighter without needing heavy armor. If you want to make a character who uses a little magic to enhance your combat abilities, you should be able to give a heavily armored fighter a solid challenge.




Are you looking for an AC that's higher than a rogue of the same level? 

One of the reasons I always wish that D&D separated out armor from hard-to-hittedness is that I really want the rogue to be harder to hit and the fighter to be better at resisting damage. As is, it's really hard to maintain that flavor because between the AC and the hit points, it's all very murky as to what's happening.


----------



## WarlockLord (Apr 30, 2012)

In other words, the things fighters can do at high levels are equal to the things a mid-level wizard can do.  Yay balance!


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 30, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> I'm more interested in the playtest info.  The fighter stuff just confirms what we'd already figured out.
> 
> So, from this, we know that the playtest packet due in May isn't really more than a "play this adventure for us."  Exactly what I didn't want to hear.  So, like before, they're going to let us actually have the rules when it's too late to have input on them?




We could see enough of the rules to be able to make our own stuff. Just not level up the characters.


----------



## SKid4 (Apr 30, 2012)

I think #1 and #6 are effectively the same thing.

If the wizard (i.e., a spellcaster) isn't better at fighting than the fighter, the fighter can be used as the benchmark for combat effectiveness.

In other words, spellcasters are possibly being designed so that they will be limited by what a fighter of equal level can do.

We've seen this already in the fireball fixed damage example.


----------



## Tovec (Apr 30, 2012)

WarlockLord said:


> In other words, the things fighters can do at high levels are equal to the things a mid-level wizard can do. * Yay balance!*




Sarcasm?

I don't really object to anything he lays out in the 6 point system because there is virtually nothing to say about for his 6 point system. There is no info for us to look at or discuss, just impressions to be gained.

1. He talks about being the best at fighting. We get no information on what "fighter skills" are but the fighter will be the best at them. Hard to argue with non-specifics. It is like saying "the magic caster will be the best at casting magic" and then expecting me to be wowed by the statement.

2. Fighters will use mundane abilities not magical ones. If this can be followed through so that the powers don't feel like magic ones great, but wasn't this tagline used for 4e's martial exploits too? Again, no details or specifics or anything to sink my teeth into except fighters aren't magic people ... great.

3. Fighters will be one man armies, capable of taking down 300 men and tearing off arms to defeat dragons.. but (as per 2) they will do it mundanely... They will use mundane (non-magic) exploits in epic and mythological ways. For me this goes back to them saying that fighters should be like Herculues and able to redirect rivers to clean out stables. 

4. Back to fighter is the best, but not explaining how. Say monks will be equal with unarmed worries me a little. I don't expect monks (using unarmed) and fighters to be the same. I would expect them to both fight without weapons in hand but the WAYS they do it should be utterly different. It also worries me when they talk about paladins being near the fighter's level, as many seem to consider paladins to BE fighters with a conscience. Once again this part talks about "fighter skill" without giving info.

5. Fighter is the toughest, so slipping back into 4e's "defender" roll is all this seems to tell me. They get extra HP and best armor but that isn't a surprise and once again - no details.

6. OMG 6... 
*"A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal"*
This scares me. By most definitions this either means the fighter is going to be INSANELY difficult to fight against or the wizard is going to suck. By Mearls' example it seems to be the former. To a certain extent isn't this the same trap we fell into with 4e and to a certain extent with 3e? Trying to balance the power levels out?
I mean yes it would be nice for the fighter not to be overshadowed by the wizard but I don't see why it is necessary for them to be "equal" to the wizard either. Being equal in terms of "doing as much damage" at roughly the same pace and effects as a wizard is a major issue many of us had with 4e. It doesn't make the fighter special, it makes them annoyingly similar. It doesn't make sense for the "mundane" fighter to be able to take down swaths of orcs with every blow every round all the time. It doesn't. That is part of what makes wizards so valuable is their ability to spread out damage. All this does is make fighters into wizards, except holding a sword, which is by far the wrong way to go.

Although this isn't really what he is saying in 6, he is talking about what they want to try and do, not what they have actually done or what we will be able to playtest. At best 6 gives us that the fighter will shrug off effects more easily. I guess I'm supposed to be overjoyed that I got part of something in the last line of 6 points being focused on by the WotC team - yay. (Mine is sarcastic).

On a side note: I'm really not opposed to them releasing these L+Ls (or others) but it seems like they should be giving us more to go on. Not just talking about nothing for the sake of talking about nothing.

Other side note: In terms of 3e for example, it isn't the fireballs that were the issue, not really. It was the time stopped, delayed blast fireballs that were a problem. It was the (perceived or not) issue of Save or Die. Or the Scry, Teleport and Kill combo. Or the no-save spells. Or the having a spell for anything. Or having just the perfect spell for anything. Or the random extra effects (web at lower levels). And so on, and on and on. Very few objections can really be raised about the fireball because those objections can be easily dealt with - reduce the damage or change how they work very minorly and people have nothing left to argue about. But with the NUMEROUS other objections and issues there are very few recourses. These are the ones that need to be addressed and balanced against (assuming they exist in the new edition - which I hope they do but differently). At higher levels the issue is the flying, invisible wizard throwing out group disable spells.. not fireball.


----------



## Dragonblade (Apr 30, 2012)

I approve of everything Mearls has said. 

Now bring on the playtest!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 30, 2012)

Good design goals.

Number 6 reminds me of 2nd edition: Spells are very difficult to use against the fighter.

All in all, that is what I expect from the fighter. He should be simple and effective. It was a very popular class in 2nd edition, even if all he did was jus basic attack every round. And this was mainly because he was a monster in close combat. If you were in melee the enemy was usually dead.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Apr 30, 2012)

I think this was the article quite a few people were really looking to see from Wizards; and anything that pulls people in should be a good thing. Congratulations Mike!

About my only quibble is that I would like to see the option for the charismatic fighter and leader of a party. I suppose compressing the warlord into the fighter is the direction I'm thinking of, although as an additional alternative, I wish the fighter would kill the rogue and take his stuff. I suppose I would like to think of the "fighter" as a triangle, with the pillars at each vertex being fighter, warlord and rogue and being able to stretch anywhere within that triangle.

I suppose I hope the fighter can do lots of things outside of combat as well as within.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Apr 30, 2012)

"attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend"

I'd like to know exactly which myths and legends Mearls is referring to.


----------



## pauljathome (Apr 30, 2012)

I'm pretty sure that I don't want even a high level fighter to be taking down waves of orcs each round. I've always seen the role of the high level fighter being more taking down tough opponents quickly (ie, doing insane amounts of damage).

And I'm even more sure that such a fighter will NOT be what I'll consider mundane.

As described, the fighter sounds likely to be over the top to me. Best AC, best hit points, best at taking down waves of opponents, best at dealing damage. So what exactly are the others doing? Having the wizard hold the fighters cape isn't really any better than having the fighter hold the wizards cape


----------



## MacMathan (Apr 30, 2012)

#6 is the key for me personally. 

It is something only 4e achieved IMO out of the entire history of D&D.

Make that possible in type 5 and I will most likely love the edition given the underlying mechanics and issues that are required for it to happen.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Apr 30, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> So, from this, we know that the playtest packet due in May isn't really more than a "play this adventure for us."  Exactly what I didn't want to hear.  So, like before, they're going to let us actually have the rules when it's too late to have input on them?



You're absolutely right. Everything you've heard about D&D Next has been a gigantic conspiracy created by an organization of evil geniuses who secretly want to create a terrible game.

Or it's just really early on and large parts of the game haven't been made yet.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Apr 30, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> "attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend"
> 
> I'd like to know exactly which myths and legends Mearls is referring to.




The myths and legends where the guy with the sword is the star of the show, often killing the guy in robes with glowing hands?


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 30, 2012)

> Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting.




So...how are they equal if the wizard is incapable of beating the fighter?
If a 20th level fighter can take every spell a 20th level wizard can throw and continue to fight on, it sounds like a 20th level fighter is nigh-unkillable or they are going anti-3.5 and making the fighter (the easiest class and one of the more powerful to play at low levels through most editions) also the most powerful at high end.

Fun.


----------



## Quickleaf (Apr 30, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> I express the following concern simply because previous editions have never made it an option with the core rules.
> 
> I like heavily armored, tough fighters, but I also want lightly armored agile fighters, and even unarmored magically-enhanced fighters, to be viable options from the start of the game. If you're in a desert or at sea, you should still be able to hold your own as a fighter without needing heavy armor. If you want to make a character who uses a little magic to enhance your combat abilities, you should be able to give a heavily armored fighter a solid challenge.
> 
> They haven't said anything explicitly to imply you _can't_ do that, but I've yet to see it work in earlier editions.




Does 4th edition's tempest fighter not qualify as a lightly armored agile warrior?


----------



## Quickleaf (Apr 30, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> "attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend"
> 
> I'd like to know exactly which myths and legends Mearls is referring to.




What about this is ambiguous exactly?



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> *3. The Fighter Exists in a World of Myth, Fantasy, and Legend*
> 
> Keeping in mind the point above, we also have to remember that while the fighter draws on mundane talent, we’re talking about mundane within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle. In the world of D&D, a skilled fighter is a one-person army. You can expect fighters to do fairly mundane things with weapons, but with such overwhelming skill that none can hope to stand against them.


----------



## FinalSonicX (Apr 30, 2012)

All of these design goals sound good to me except #1 and #5. #1 just sounds terribly vague (I do want fighters to be the best at fighting, but I also want all other classes to be able to contribute, particularly the other more mundane classes like rogue, ranger, paladin, and barbarian). #5 is only concerning because my experience with Barbarians is that they tend to have the largest health, but I also note that there was mention of rangers and paladins but no barbarians (some kind of implication that barbarian is a background/theme rather than a player class?).

Also, the comment about mythic or legendary feats of heroism by fighters is a little tiny bit worrying. I love it when fighters can do heroic things like Beowulf, but I don't necessarily want this tone to be pervasive in the system itself until epic levels. Just a personal preference in tone and capability. Perhaps modules will be able to make up for anything I don't particularly like in this regard. I remain hopeful.

Otherwise looks good. Obviously the article is pretty light on details and are really just comments on what the designers would like to accomplish - no telling if they'll actually pull it off until we see the rules.


----------



## Daztur (Apr 30, 2012)

As far as fighters being awesome, once upon a time fighters had the best HPs, the best AC, the best saves (to the point where using save or lose spells against high level fighters was dumb) and could make one attack per CLASS LEVEL per round against weak opponents and the poor casters managed to struggle on somehow


----------



## the Jester (Apr 30, 2012)

Huh... the one thing in that article that surprises me is the "fighters should have the most hit points" comment. Barbarian, where art thou?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2012)

Perhaps the Barbarian will be a fighter theme/kit/sub-class/whatever?


----------



## Argyle King (Apr 30, 2012)

It sounds a little like 5E will lean toward Mythic Fantasy as a playstyle.  

While I have played games in the past of that style and have also highly enjoyed them, I'm feeling as though that's not really what I'm looking for.  4th Edition does that already.  I'm a bit unsure if the Durango's design team means the same thing by 'modularity' as what I wanted them to mean.


----------



## Quickleaf (Apr 30, 2012)

Daztur said:


> As far as fighters being awesome, once upon a time fighters had the best HPs, the best AC, the best saves (to the point where using save or lose spells against high level fighters was dumb) and could make one attack per CLASS LEVEL per round against weak opponents and the poor casters managed to struggle on somehow




I've heard that before too, what edition is that from? I started playing with BD&D Rules Cyclopedia and never was exposed to it.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 30, 2012)

the Jester said:


> Huh... the one thing in that article that surprises me is the "fighters should have the most hit points" comment. Barbarian, where art thou?




Barbarians should be a background, berserkers should be a theme.

Warder


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2012)

Quickleaf said:


> I've heard that before too, what edition is that from? I started playing with BD&D Rules Cyclopedia and never was exposed to it.



1e AD&D.


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 30, 2012)

Quickleaf said:


> I've heard that before too, what edition is that from? I started playing with BD&D Rules Cyclopedia and never was exposed to it.



It's from AD&D. Fighter-type classes can attack creatures with less than one full hit die and 0-level NPCs once per level.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2012)

Quickleaf said:


> I've heard that before too, what edition is that from?





Tony Vargas said:


> 1e AD&D.



In AD&D it is one attack per level vs foes of less than 1 HD (fighters, paladins and rangers all get this).

In OD&D I believe the criterion is 1 HD or less. I believe that the reason for the change was that, on OD&D, 1st level fighters had 1+1 HD and so (in their capacity as potential targets, not attackers) were exempt from the rule. When, in AD&D, they were given a flat 1 HD, the cut-off was lowered to maintain the exemption.


----------



## GM Dave (Apr 30, 2012)

am181d said:


> Are you looking for an AC that's higher than a rogue of the same level?
> 
> One of the reasons I always wish that D&D separated out armor from hard-to-hittedness is that I really want the rogue to be harder to hit and the fighter to be better at resisting damage. As is, it's really hard to maintain that flavor because between the AC and the hit points, it's all very murky as to what's happening.




I just bought the hard cover version of 'A Song of Ice and Fire RPG' from Green Ronin and it does this.

Plate Armor is the best armor at absorbing damage but it imposes a heavy penalty on your defense making you easier to be hit.

Shields help your defense which can balance things some.

The system also uses a separate Skill/Attribute for calculating damage from hitting.  It also divides most of the missile damage and hitting from the melee pair of damage and hitting.

Sorry for the side note please return to the rest of your thread ;>


----------



## gweinel (Apr 30, 2012)

Am I the only one that thinks that these are the same design goals with 4e fighter?  
I don't know if it is good or bad that considering that my playing style as dm differs greatly from the 4e mentality.
However, although i have concluded that i don't like 4e anymore, i enjoyed very much playing a 4e fighter.


----------



## gweinel (Apr 30, 2012)

GM Dave said:


> I just bought the hard cover version of 'A Song of Ice and Fire RPG' from Green Ronin and it does this.
> 
> Plate Armor is the best armor at absorbing damage but it imposes a heavy penalty on your defense making you easier to be hit.
> 
> ...




Can you give a bit feedback for that fighter in comparison with the dnd and the one they want to playtest? 
From these words i find the fighting system you mention quite intersting.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 30, 2012)

_2. The Fighter Draws on Training and Experience, not Magic

Fighters master mundane tactics and weapon skills. They don’t need spells or some sort of external source of magical power to succeed. Fighters do stuff that is *within the limits of mundane mortals*. They don’t reverse gravity or shoot beams of energy._

Yay! No Dungeons and Dragonballs! 

_3. The Fighter Exists in a World of Myth, Fantasy, and Legend

Keeping in mind the point above, we also have to remember that while the fighter draws on mundane talent, we’re talking about mundane within the context of a mythical, fantasy setting. Beowulf slew Grendel by tearing his arm off. He later killed a dragon almost singlehandedly. Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle. In the world of D&D, a skilled fighter is a one-person army. You can expect fighters to do fairly mundane things with weapons, but with such overwhelming skill that none can hope to stand against them._

I'm really glad to read this, some folks like to treat 'Mundane' as a four letter word in regards to RPG characters.


----------



## GM Dave (Apr 30, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Good design goals.
> 
> Number 6 reminds me of 2nd edition: Spells are very difficult to use against the fighter.
> 
> All in all, that is what I expect from the fighter. He should be simple and effective. It was a very popular class in 2nd edition, even if all he did was jus basic attack every round. And this was mainly because he was a monster in close combat. If you were in melee the enemy was usually dead.




I think that this #6 point misses the Wizard's strongest weapon.

The Wizard's tool box of spells.

Straight up with a Wizard flinging damage spells compared to a fighter then the fighter is going to win.  Even in 3e the fighter usually beat the Evocation Wizard in high level play for damage because the fighter had enough attacks and added enough bonuses on to each hit.

I've done several high level Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers that would beat out the rest of the party's Evocation style Wizards due the per melee cycle of attacks of damage with the right equipment augmenting the attacks.

The Wizard doesn't fight 'fair'.  He flies around using improved invisibility and maybe a modifier on stealth.  He dimension doors around releasing attacks from crazy angles and places.  He shuts you into boxes of iron with no holes and lets you die of suffocation.  He brings along demons and elementals to the fight.  He stands behind walls of prismatic colours and watches his delayed blast explode at your feat and then time stops to do it again.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 30, 2012)

Sound okay to me.

But how did they solve the "dragon problem"? (Dragon flies up and drops breath attacks/spells)

Sounds like the fighter's HP, accuracy, and damage are so high at high levels that there is no escape from death once in range. 
You fight in melee. The Fighter slices you in half.
You stay at long range. The Fighter snipes you through the heart.
You can't buff up and fly above him and rain magic. Because if you can buff up with magic, you can't survive the fighter's first arrow shot.

Anyone notice that in 4, monks, rangers, and paladins are mention but not barbarian.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 30, 2012)

Re the playtest: it mentions they're going to run the pre-gen characters up to 10th level but doesn't mention over what time frame - I have to assume relatively short, so how long will the playtesters get to whack around at each level before the next one arrives?

Side note: I hope this doesn't reflect the default advancement rate in the game as released, as it would be way too fast.

As for the Fighter, colour me mostly unimpressed.  While I like the idea of the Fighter being tougher (more h.p.) and able to give out melee damage better than most, I'm worried that the ugly head of balance is already being reared, and threatening to devour what otherwise looks like a promising edition.

I'd like to think the examples used - Beowulf, Roland - are to be the game's equivalent of legendary heroes, that PCs can emulate only at the highest levels of the game.  If not, the power curve is gonna get completely out of hand...

And a final alarm bell: nowhere in that column do I see anything about the Fighter being simple to roll up, simple to grok, and simple to play.

Lanefan


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 30, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Anyone notice that in 4, monks, rangers, and paladins are mention but not barbarian.




because barbarian is a background choice and not a class? And berserker should be a fighter theme (if not a class).

Warder


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> So...how are they equal if the wizard is incapable of beating the fighter?
> If a 20th level fighter can take every spell a 20th level wizard can throw and continue to fight on, it sounds like a 20th level fighter is nigh-unkillable or they are going anti-3.5 and making the fighter (the easiest class and one of the more powerful to play at low levels through most editions) also the most powerful at high end.
> 
> Fun.




The Wizard is doing *magic*. The Wizard is doing things that the Fighter can't, like flying, turning invisible, summoning spirits from the outer planes to discover secrets, sending dreams into the mind of an enemy, scrying, setting up teleport circles, etc, etc. If your requirement is that they be able to do a whole host of things that a Fighter can't, and be at least as good in combat as the Fighter, then it looks like D&DN won't cater to you.



Daztur said:


> As far as fighters being awesome, once upon a time fighters had the best HPs, the best AC, the best saves (to the point where using save or lose spells against high level fighters was dumb) and could make one attack per CLASS LEVEL per round against weak opponents and the poor casters managed to struggle on somehow




Can't XP you, but I remember those days too. 

One thing that you say, that the Fighter had the best saves, is something I note specifically isn't said in this article. I mean, if they want the high-level Fighter to be equal to the Wizard, they're going to have to make one who can expect to save against most spells.


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 30, 2012)

GM Dave said:


> I think that this #6 point misses the Wizard's strongest weapon.
> 
> The Wizard's tool box of spells.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, it's been heavily implied that evokers are going to be the primary wizard type for 5e. Which is reminiscent of the role identity problem wizards had at the start of 4E.


----------



## FinalSonicX (Apr 30, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> because barbarian is a background choice and not a class?




are we certain of that? Has that been confirmed and if so do you have a link?


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 30, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> But how did they solve the "dragon problem"? (Dragon flies up and drops breath attacks/spells)



Not a problem if wings are not the assumed default on every dragon. Also less a problem if the ruleset doesn't assume dragons get to fly for hours upon hours without tiring. 

Thankfully D&D has been moving away from Dragon = Spellcaster so hopefully not every dragon even has spells in 5e. Finally Breath attacks should be a limited resource in some manner and hopefully blockable with a shield as depicted in countless pieces of art.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 30, 2012)

FinalSonicX said:


> are we certain of that? Has that been confirmed and if so do you have a link?




No, but I'm rooting for it 

Warder


----------



## GM Dave (Apr 30, 2012)

gweinel said:


> Can you give a bit feedback for that fighter in comparison with the dnd and the one they want to playtest?
> From these words i find the fighting system you mention quite intersting.




I can not do a proper comparison because I have not played A Song of Ice and Fire with friends yet.  I hope that by the end of the month to do it.

It is a low fantasy world.

The system is a roll and keep system using d6.  Using an Axe might be Fighting 4d + 2B Axe; where Fighting is the Attribute that represents your general melee skill and 2B Axe represents a further study in using Axes.

A player would roll 6d (4+2) and then choose the best 4 to keep as their total.

The attack roll would then be compared to your opponents defense which is based on 3 attributes/skills (Agility, Athletics, Awareness).  A normal person would have a 6 defense (2 is normal making this 2+2+2).

Plate Armour has a -6 modifier to the defense (so even a skilled warrior that might have 3s or 4s in their attributes will have a defense of 6 at most when wearing plate armour making them fairly easy to hit and a commoner is just a walking target for thumping).

A standard Shield gives a +2 while a large Kite shield would give a +4.  You can see how this can be important for offsetting the penalty of wearing heavy armour but a mostly naked person using a shield could still benefit.

If you surpass the person's defense then you get to do damage.  For every 5 points that you surpass the person's defense the damage done is multiplied.

Damage done is related to the attribute/skill modified by the weapon used.  If you have say a knife then the damage is Athletics -2 while a Longsword is Athletics +1 and a Great Sword is Athletics +3.  A normal fighter would have Athletics of 3.  This gives a range of 1, 4, & 6.

If you were attacking a person with a defense of 10 and you rolled an 11 to hit with a Longsword.

If the person had no armour then you would have beat the target number by 1 and done 4 damage.

If the person had no armour and a shield raising their defense to 12 then you would have missed.

If the person had been wearing plate armour then their defense would have been lowered to 4.  You would have thus beaten their total by more than 5 and get to do 4x2 = 8 damage.

Health (HP in the game) is Endurance x3.  An average person has 6 Health and warrior will often have no more than 5 x3 = 15 Health.

So, if you had hit the average person for 4 damage with the longsword then they are in bad shape and a regular warrior is down a 1/3 of their health (assuming 12 Health total).

Plate Armour provides 10 AR.  This means that in the example where the longsword hit for a bonus total of 8 damage that the armour held and none was transferred on to the warrior inside the suit.  If the attacker had used a Great Sword 6x2 = 12 damage then there would be some minor damage to the person inside the armour from the hit.

The weapon list is interesting and colourful.  Some weapons will impose a negative bonus die to using them because they are more difficult to learn to use (Flails and Whips are examples).  Some weapons do extra effects if you get a couple of raises.  Some weapons are described as Vicious (normally if you knock a person to 0 heath then you can choose how wounded you want them to be but vicious weapons automatically send a person to dying).  Some weapons can impale a person and there are rules that if you impale someone that you can then stick them to the wall or ground.

It looks like it will be a fun system to play.


----------



## gweinel (Apr 30, 2012)

GM Dave said:


> I can not do a proper comparison because I have not played A Song of Ice and Fire with friends yet.  I hope that by the end of the month to do it.
> 
> It is a low fantasy world.
> 
> ...





Thank you for the info and yes sounds fun. 

I am wondering if a fight takes too long whith all these calculations/charts. (The clasical problem of these kind of combat mechanics). I always found em attractive in way. Probably because my first roleplaying game was Middle Earth Role Playing game in the 90s using rolemaster combat system.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Apr 30, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> And a final alarm bell: nowhere in that column do I see anything about the Fighter being simple to roll up, simple to grok, and simple to play.



One of the goals of D&D Next is that _any character_ can be as simple or as complex as you want. So there are simple fighters, simple wizards, complex fighters, complex wizards.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Apr 30, 2012)

A few points other have hit on:

-Barbarian, yeah, they mentioned the Fighter having the most HP, good, I have always thought the barbarian was not worthy of a class; like the idea of Background, so you could have a Barbaric party.

-Monks, yes, one of my all time favourite classes, the 1st Ed one still rocks the most.

-Simplicity, I remember them mentioning simple and complex classes, Assassin being a complex one, I think (hope) Fighter would be a simple one.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2012)

GM Dave said:


> I think that this #6 point misses the Wizard's strongest weapon.
> 
> The Wizard's tool box of spells.



"Misses" or glosses over?  If you define 'fighting' as narrowly as 'hitting enemies with weapons who respond only by hitting you back with weapons,' the fighter could be 'best' at fighting, even by a large margin, while still leaving the wizard plenty of room to be better at solving all problems and overcoming all challenges - including the broader concept of 'combat.'


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 30, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> because barbarian is a background choice and not a class? And berserker should be a fighter theme (if not a class).
> 
> Warder




Since we don't known what themes look like, I wont drop barbarian in the theme bin. Especially since they themes would be close to feats and so far we haven seen a "barbarian" theme or feat.



frankthedm said:


> Not a problem if wings are not the assumed default on every dragon. Also less a problem if the ruleset doesn't assume dragons get to fly for hours upon hours without tiring.
> 
> Thankfully D&D has been moving away from Dragon = Spellcaster so hopefully not every dragon even has spells in 5e. Finally Breath attacks should be a limited resource in some manner and hopefully blockable with a shield as depicted in countless pieces of art.





But D&D's true dragons all have wings. Fights don't typically last hours.

A red dragon will probably be able to fly for at least 5 minutes. He's be able able to get one free fire breath on the fighter.

But like you said, hopefully breath attacks are limited and spells are not mandatory or combat worthy; forcing the dragon to land.


----------



## Szatany (Apr 30, 2012)

pauljathome said:


> I'm pretty sure that I don't want even a high level fighter to be taking down waves of orcs each round.



I definitely do. Wizards will be able to do so from 5th level onwards, at least. Fighter at high level should be able to kill 5 or so puny orcs with a turn worth of attacks.



pauljathome said:


> I've always seen the role of the high level fighter being more taking down tough opponents quickly (ie, doing insane amounts of damage).



Maybe, I don't know. I mean I don't think he should be limited to what you want of him. I've always seen the fighter as being able to do all kinds of tactics, provided he has appropriate weapon and abilities.



pauljathome said:


> And I'm even more sure that such a fighter will NOT be what I'll consider mundane.



Me neither. But I don't want the fighter to stay with mundane abilities at higher level. I want him to do stuff I read in books about Conan, Kane, Heracles etc. In other words, let him do mundane stuff as far as fantastic worlds go.



pauljathome said:


> As described, the fighter sounds likely to be over the top to me. Best AC, best hit points, best at taking down waves of opponents, best at dealing damage. So what exactly are the others doing? Having the wizard hold the fighters cape isn't really any better than having the fighter hold the wizards cape



Fighter's gonna be best _in combat._ Other might come close (rangers), be better at one thing but worse at all others (rogues), or be better once every x rounds (wizards). All of those classes will have more powerful out of combat abilities to compensate.


----------



## Ratskinner (Apr 30, 2012)

Okay, without reading the rest of the thread first...

1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting!

Sounds good. I have a minor concern that this is a lot of weight for one class, given the breadth of what "Fighting" entails in a game like D&D. 

2. The Fighter Draws on Training and Experience, not Magic

Okay.

3. The Fighter Exists in a World of Myth, Fantasy, and Legend

Okay, not sure why this and #2 aren't some kind of joint point, but whatever.

4. The Fighter Is Versatile

The fighter is skilled with all weapons. The best archer, jouster, and swordmaster in the realm are all fighters. A monk can match a fighter’s skill when it comes to unarmed combat, and rangers and paladins are near a fighter’s skill level, but the fighter is typically in a class by itself regardless of weapon.​And this is where my problem with #1 comes up. This idea is okay, I think, except that we don't seem to want the realm's best archer, jouster, and swordmaster to be _the same guy!_ I'll rant below on this.

5. The Fighter Is the Toughest Character

My Barbarian's toes say "ouch."

6. A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal

Absolutely no problem here. Although I prefer taking the Wizard down a few notches by making magic riskier than it has been of late.

 Anyway, I generally don't object to the overall tone, except to the #1 & #4 rant below.

Begin Rant, Ignore as you will:
The problem with #4\#1 is pretty fundamental. So the fighter is good an _everything with every weapon._ Fine, so long as I have only one at the table. A recent BECMI-ish game that I played in saw three fighters at the table. We were functionally identical.  It made magic item distribution an argumentative chore, with the added bonus that we were defined by our stuff...I thought that was a bad thing. It was bad enough that the DM retrofitted in some subclasses for us by 5th level. 

So 3.x approaches this problem with feats. The fighter got the most, and they helped spruce them up with specialties. The problem is that now the mechanical weight is on the feats, not the class. So I can't look at (or write up) a Fighter without looking at his list of feats to find out what he can really do. Suddenly, the idea that the fighter is best at fighting becomes questionable. A specialist with his weapon can be far more effective that a non-specialized fighter. Which brings up another question:

Which fighter do you balance with the Wizard? Is the super-swordsman or Joe Generico the fighter who is equally effective as the spellchucker? If you make something (anything) like specialization count so little that this difference is academic, then I (as a DM, if not player) will resent the extra effort that it burdens me with. 

If you later add in an Archer class, should he be better than the Fighter at Archery? If you do take that route (and don't splatbook sales demand it?), is a large party better served by dumping the Fighter and instead having an Archer, Swashbuckler, and Weaponmaster?

End Rant

Maybe themes will help make this a bit easier? Obviously, I don't know how well they _will_ help this, but the possibility is there. Tacking "Lurker", "Slayer", or "Academic" to the top of the Character Sheet might make it a bit easier to tell right off how they work. I just hope that themes are already mechanically optimized. I hate the idea of having to again build NPCs tiny piece by tiny piece. 

Anyhow, time to read the rest of the thread and find out how crazy I am.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 30, 2012)

What Mearls is saying... I like it.

If wizards do have extensive supernatural non-combat capabilities, as Bluenose describes, the mundane fighter will never be able to match that (even if he's given a lot more skill points) so it seems the only way to go is to make him significantly better at combat. More damage output (yes, even against multiple targets), better debuffs, better defensive capabilities - hit points, armor, and saves. I like the idea of the fighter as the magic resistance guy, shrugging off finger of deaths and dominates cuz he's so damn tough and strong-willed.

Either you make the fighter magic, and that seems not to be D&DNext's approach, or you nerf the wizard. This would, arguably, be going against many of D&D's traditions, as wizards and other casters have, historically, been the most powerful classes by far.

The question is, how do you nerf the wizard? Take away his superior multi-target damage? Fireball is the single most iconic spell in all of D&D, it's hard to nerf, and yet I think that is probably the best way to go. Leave fighting to the fighter.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Apr 30, 2012)

Ratskinner said:


> The fighter is skilled with all weapons. The best archer, jouster, and swordmaster in the realm are all fighters. A monk can match a fighter’s skill when it comes to unarmed combat, and rangers and paladins are near a fighter’s skill level, but the fighter is typically in a class by itself regardless of weapon.​




So, does this mean the paladin and ranger will be limited in weapon effectiveness?


----------



## Ratskinner (Apr 30, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> So, does this mean the paladin and ranger will be limited in weapon effectiveness?




I dunno. To me, that part of the article just didn't make much sense. My guess is that the answer is "yes", and that the Paladin and Ranger have other divine or woodsy tricks that make up for it.


----------



## Ratskinner (Apr 30, 2012)

Tovec said:


> Other side note: In terms of 3e for example, it isn't the fireballs that were the issue, not really. It was the time stopped, delayed blast fireballs that were a problem. It was the (perceived or not) issue of Save or Die. Or the Scry, Teleport and Kill combo. Or the no-save spells. Or the having a spell for anything. Or having just the perfect spell for anything. Or the random extra effects (web at lower levels). And so on, and on and on. Very few objections can really be raised about the fireball because those objections can be easily dealt with - reduce the damage or change how they work very minorly and people have nothing left to argue about. But with the NUMEROUS other objections and issues there are very few recourses. These are the ones that need to be addressed and balanced against (assuming they exist in the new edition - which I hope they do but differently). At higher levels the issue is the flying, invisible wizard throwing out group disable spells.. not fireball.




I totally agree here. The problem in 3e wasn't the Vancian system (not that I'm a fan, mind), it was the spells themselves. In previous editions, spells often had quirky drawbacks that made casting them an actual decision. Far too many spells in 3.x were just pure win (that, and there were far too many spells ). They kept all the good, or cranked it up, and got rid of all the bad.


----------



## Ratskinner (Apr 30, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Anyone notice that in 4, monks, rangers, and paladins are mention but not barbarian.




Maybe we are lucky and barbarian is now a theme? Maybe a background?

Personally, I'm in favor of transferring a lot of more "flavor-specific" classes into themes or backgrounds.


----------



## tlantl (Apr 30, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> The question is, how do you nerf the wizard? Take away his superior multi-target damage? Fireball is the single most iconic spell in all of D&D, it's hard to nerf, and yet I think that is probably the best way to go. Leave fighting to the fighter.




One way I see is to make the wizard's spells dangerous for him to use. Make the fireball do what fireballs do. If he wants to play with fire then things should get burned. Shoot a 60 foot lightning bolt in a 30 foot room it bounces back at you. Summon a demon without the proper protections, the demon eats _you_ first. 

A whole lot of spells lost their capacity to make the caster's life suck. If the cost of components, miscasting, side effects, being hit while casting, and bad planning return to the reality of spell casting then a lot of the caster's awesome power is contained. 

Honestly reducing or limiting the number of dice a spell does for damage is a pitiful replacement for the hazards of spell casting.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 30, 2012)

If these are the core assumptions of 5E its not clear to me how this is going support all previous edition playstyles. It sounds a little more like 4.5E than I would have thought the stated design goals would allow.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Apr 30, 2012)

Ratskinner said:


> Personally, I'm in favor of transferring a lot of more "flavor-specific" classes into themes or backgrounds.





Me too, but how far to go; I would like the Warlord to be a Theme/Kit/Subclass what-have-you, but many obviously want it to be its own Class.

Like the Monk, I want it it be its own Class (still love the 1st Ed monk, would play it over any class from any edition), but I can see the argument for making it a Theme/Kit/Subclass etc.


----------



## Ratskinner (Apr 30, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> "Misses" or glosses over?  If you define 'fighting' as narrowly as 'hitting enemies with weapons who respond only by hitting you back with weapons,' the fighter could be 'best' at fighting, even by a large margin, while still leaving the wizard plenty of room to be better at solving all problems and overcoming all challenges - including the broader concept of 'combat.'




I don't think that's the point.

The problem is that it seems like all the things you can do to make the Fighter more interesting or better at combat (without just tacking on massive bonuses) approach combat from the "Combat as Sport" direction and plenty of spells have effects that seem to come from the "Combat as War" direction. This, in particular was the problem with 3.x, IMHO.  (I haven't played enough 4e to comment on mid or high level play there, other than plenty of people complaining about "status" effects...)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 30, 2012)

tlantl said:


> One way I see is to make the wizard's spells dangerous for him to use. Make the fireball do what fireballs do. If he wants to play with fire then things should get burned. Shoot a 60 foot lightning bolt in a 30 foot room it bounces back at you. Summon a demon without the proper protections, the demon eats _you_ first.
> 
> A whole lot of spells lost their capacity to make the caster's life suck. If the cost of components, miscasting, side effects, being hit while casting, and bad planning return to the reality of spell casting then a lot of the caster's awesome power is contained.



I agree with most of what you're saying, it's very much the 1e approach. Do you think all spells should be risky to cast, or just a few? Iirc most 1e spells didn't have any drawbacks - magic missile for example. And should this also apply to divine spellcasting? There could be something akin to potion miscibility/wand of wonder/deck of many things randomness with potentially very negative consequences whenever any spell is cast. Or perhaps that would slow the game down too much.

I like the idea of spells being more disruptable in combat. Defensive casting  or taking a five foot step backwards was too easy in 3e, imo. Maybe if all casting was a full round action.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 30, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> As for the Fighter, colour me mostly unimpressed. While I like the idea of the Fighter being tougher (more h.p.) and able to give out melee damage better than most, I'm worried that the ugly head of balance is already being reared, and threatening to devour what otherwise looks like a promising edition.
> 
> I'd like to think the examples used - Beowulf, Roland - are to be the game's equivalent of legendary heroes, that PCs can emulate only at the highest levels of the game. If not, the power curve is gonna get completely out of hand...




The problem with that statement is that the classic D&D power curve is _already_ out of hand, and 3.X only made it worse.  I'd like to think that Roland was about on a par with Gandalf.  And Gandalf was statted at a _4th_ level D&D druid.  If you're going to plough over the classic casters and salt the earth - and only take what then grows then Beowulf and Roland should be the highest levels of the power curve.  Otherwise the highest levels should be closer to CuChulain.



Ratskinner said:


> I totally agree here. The problem in 3e wasn't the Vancian system (not that I'm a fan, mind), it was the spells themselves. In previous editions, spells often had quirky drawbacks that made casting them an actual decision. Far too many spells in 3.x were just pure win (that, and there were far too many spells ). They kept all the good, or cranked it up, and got rid of all the bad.




In 3e, the limits were removed on what little balance the wizards had.  This didn't mean that the casters weren't stronger in earlier editions (Gygax has on the record agreed that the 'overpowered' Unearthed Arcana classes were to try to balance the fighters with the casters).  The very daily recharge and variety of spells a wizard can prepare is difficult to balance.  Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own.  And that goes double when 10th level was the endgame in AD&D - and only the midgame in 3.X


----------



## Njall (Apr 30, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> If these are the core assumptions of 5E its not clear to me how this is going support all previous edition playstyles. It sounds a little more like 4.5E than I would have thought the stated design goals would allow.




How so? 4e started from the basic premise that every class was equally good at fighting... this is a definite break from that paradigm.


----------



## Ratskinner (Apr 30, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Me too, but how far to go; I would like the Warlord to be a Theme/Kit/Subclass what-have-you, but many obviously want it to be its own Class.
> 
> Like the Monk, I want it it be its own Class (still love the 1st Ed monk, would play it over any class from any edition), but I can see the argument for making it a Theme/Kit/Subclass etc.




I'm really not sure, with the little information we have, how much weight themes and backgrounds can carry. Lately, I've been analyzing this by thinking "How would you break a traditional class down into class, theme, and background in such a way that they are interchangeable with other classes, themes, and backgrounds." 

So looking at the "Old" Monk:
Class: Martial Artist - you get some funky combat tricks, perhaps focusing on unarmed combat and movement. (Although maybe this is just the Rogue version of  Monk.)
Background: Monk - you get some exploration/lore bonuses, some sneaking (for being quiet), maybe some minor healing/personal magic, maybe an extra language or two (or read languages).
Theme - Ascetic you are limited in the amount and quality of equipment you can have, and loot you can own, however, you get a bunch of "I'm just that good." abilities to more than make up for it. 

So, you could take the Ascetic theme and put it with a Fighter to get most of the way towards a Spartan warrior. Tack on a "Soldier" or maybe "Noble" background and your there.

How much, if at all, that reflects 5e design...who knows.


----------



## Zireael (Apr 30, 2012)

GM Dave said:


> I can not do a proper comparison because I have not played A Song of Ice and Fire with friends yet.  I hope that by the end of the month to do it.
> 
> It is a low fantasy world.
> 
> ...




Is this about D&D Next or some other system?


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 30, 2012)

I think Backgrounds and Themes might handle base line adventuring. They  will handle your base ability and make you good at combat, exploring,  and social interaction.

Class adds the cherry on top.

Fighter gives a bonus to Combat. The Best bonuses actually. For out of combat, you have to look back a background.

Rogue  gives bonuses to Exploration and Social and a small bonus to Combat.  When you get in a fight, you lean heavy on your Theme for something  other than Sneak Attack.

Wizards and Clerics get bonuses based on  what spells they prepare. But the combat bonuses of spells, even after a  nova of spells, never reach the bonuses of a Fighter.

Background and Theme gives you a 3 (great) in Combat, Exploration, Interaction.

A Fighter is +3 to Combat (6/3/3)
A Rogue is +2 Explore, +1 Combat (4/5/3)
A Cleric is +1 to all (4/4/4)
A Wizard is +2 to their choice
A Paladin is +2 Combat, +1 Social (5/3/4)
A Ranger s +2 Combat, +1 Explore (5/4/3)
A Bard is +3 Social (3/3/6)
etc


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 30, 2012)

> Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard.



[Sigh]. Now there's a myth/fantasy/legend.



> Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter, and attaining balance is something that we must do to make D&D fit in with fantasy, myth, and legend.



There's an almost political vibe to these kinds of statements, like they're trying to take some really negative things (powers) but sugarcoat them and state them in a euphemistic way that no one could disagree with.

Sure, I hope we'll see a high-level fighter with diverse and powerful options and excellent defense, but the first mention I see that fighters (or rogues, or barbarians) have anything "per day", I'm done.



> Fighters do stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals.
> ...
> The Fighter Is the Toughest Character
> ...
> The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting



Just thought I'd mention the positive as well. At least they're having some thoughts in the right direction.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Apr 30, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And that goes double when 10th level was the endgame in AD&D -




10th level is not the endgame in 1st Ed.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Apr 30, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> I'm more interested in the playtest info.  The fighter stuff just confirms what we'd already figured out.
> 
> So, from this, we know that the playtest packet due in May isn't really more than a "play this adventure for us."  Exactly what I didn't want to hear.  So, like before, they're going to let us actually have the rules when it's too late to have input on them?




I believe this is the First public playtest WOTC has done, how are "and no one I sure how long it will run or what exactly is in the PT. How is WOTC ..."So, like before, they're going to let us actually have the rules when it's too late to have input on them?" How many WOTC PTs have you participated in so far ?

Maybe we can stop BASHING the playtest until you have it, & have played it for a week or Two. Rally, the sky is NOT falling.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 30, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> If these are the core assumptions of 5E its not clear to me how this is going support all previous edition playstyles. It sounds a little more like 4.5E than I would have thought the stated design goals would allow.




What? The assumption that the Fighter is the best at combat, that they're the toughest member of the party, that their skills are mundane, is not a 4e thing. It was true in AD&D and BD&D, so I can't see what your complaint is here.


----------



## Ratskinner (Apr 30, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The problem with that statement is that the classic D&D power curve is _already_ out of hand, and 3.X only made it worse.  I'd like to think that Roland was about on a par with Gandalf.  And Gandalf was statted at a _4th_ level D&D druid.  If you're going to plough over the classic casters and salt the earth - and only take what then grows then Beowulf and Roland should be the highest levels of the power curve.  Otherwise the highest levels should be closer to CuChulain.




I think the bigger issue is that the power curve is undefined. That is, the "core" of D&D doesn't make very strong statements about what different levels mean in terms of the narrative assumptions. So what does 20th level mean to D&D? What does 10th or even 1st? Various editions have taken various stances on where you start! How can we expect them to figure out how you should end up?

That's why I'm in favor of cutting back the levels in the "Basic" game. People seem to have a general consensus about that the "low" level game is supposed to look like. Some people want to start as heroes, others as a peasant with a sword/spellbook. I think we've heard that level 1 will be the classic start and that if you want to start heroic, just start at level 3. (I did a similar thing in 3.x and it worked great.) They seem to want themes to run for 6 levels, fine, let the basic game run to 12. That still leaves the heroic groups 9 level-ups before the basic game runs out.

After that, though, there isn't such broad consensus on where things go. Some people want to head towards King Richard, others want to head toward Cu Cuchlain or Hercules. Also, most games seem to die out about there. People want to try different characters etc. So, for the folks who want it, let those groups choose between different high-level modules. Some will throw caster-martial balance out the window, others will have fighters cleaving mountains....whatever, I hardly ever play there. I think it's probably better to leave it to the experts. Play what you want, y'know.



Neonchameleon said:


> In 3e, the limits were removed on what little balance the wizards had.  This didn't mean that the casters weren't stronger in earlier editions (Gygax has on the record agreed that the 'overpowered' Unearthed Arcana classes were to try to balance the fighters with the casters).  The very daily recharge and variety of spells a wizard can prepare is difficult to balance.  Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own.  And that goes double when 10th level was the endgame in AD&D - and only the midgame in 3.X




AD&D stopped at 10th? News to me. Low(er) level AD&D wizards had fewer spell slots and their use was a matter of some contention in most of the groups I was in. (Remember how fighters ruled the lower levels?) IIRC, the list of spells was a lot shorter, too. Nonetheless, as you headed up the spell levels toward _Wish_, the fundamental power level changed a lot. However, _Wish_ is the perfect example, the DM was encouraged (or at least they all acted like they were) to pick apart almost any wish you could make and use it against you. Part of the motivation behind 3e's changes was that Wizard players rarely got to enjoy the fruits of their suffering at low levels by making it past 10th or so. It turned out to be an over-correction, IMO. 

Balance, though, especially across all the levels of 3 and 4 e, is in the eye of the beholder. I don't there's any objective or rational way to argue or determine how the upper reaches of the game should work. Let the people who want to play up there, do it. If you want CuChulain and Väinämöinen to be remaking the world, go for it. However, we should also provide for the folks who want Ned Stark and Grand Maester Pycelle, and for the folks who want Croaker and the Lady, and for the folks who want Arthur and Merlin.


----------



## tlantl (Apr 30, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> I agree with most of what you're saying, it's very much the 1e approach. Do you think all spells should be risky to cast, or just a few? Iirc most 1e spells didn't have any drawbacks - magic missile for example. And should this also apply to divine spellcasting? There could be something akin to potion miscibility/wand of wonder/deck of many things randomness with potentially very negative consequences whenever any spell is cast. Or perhaps that would slow the game down too much.
> 
> I like the idea of spells being more disruptable in combat. Defensive casting  or taking a five foot step backwards was too easy in 3e, imo. Maybe if all casting was a full round action.





It's hard to say. the newer versions of the game did so much damage to the character side checks and balances that some of the things that used to reduce the sheer number of unrestrained spells can't be used without going back to a time when you couldn't add ability scores, had defined limits on the numbers of spells you could learn, and couldn't expect to ever have a bonus spell. These things will cause riots. 

Spell failure and casting times have no meaning today. The rounds are too short and casting times are too fast.  Again we have the problem of not being able to go backwards because people will rebel. The argument being that these things were bad design that has to stay buried. I contend that removing them is the bad design, but hey I'm a fossil.

A lot of the problem with wizard and cleric spells is the freedom players have to use them. Even now I control the spells available by only letting wizards learn spells they actually have in their possession and clerics use lists I devised during 2e for specialty priests. if the player strays from their alignments or fail to put their god's interests before their own then they suffer losing access to spells. But I use rules found in books that have been out of print for a while.

I like dangerous magic items. they give players pause. Not everything in a hoard is going to be useful or desirable. The magic items in 3e were disappointing. They were either too powerful or too generic. Players wound up looking for certain items to increase their abilities and damage output which made adding cool trinkets a waste of time since they never got used.

All I can say is that the guys trying to reinvent the wheel again have their work cut out for them.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 30, 2012)

Njall said:


> How so? 4e started from the basic premise that every class was equally good at fighting... this is a definite break from that paradigm.




"Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard. It’s all too easy for combinations of spells to make the wizard a far more potent enemy or character, especially if a wizard can unleash his or her spells in rapid succession. A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round. Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter."

This sounds exactly like the sort of thing I would expect to hear from 4E designers. The fighter taking out <waves> each round models which prior edition exactly as a base line? Sounds more like stuff that would needed to be stipped away and not added to emulate previous editions. Its hard to know without seeing the mechanics but you make vague statements you leave things open to various interpritations. Roland also cleaved a mountain with his sword, this models which previous edition as a base line?


----------



## avin (Apr 30, 2012)

#6 is what I mostly want to see.

Wizards can't be the 3E's monsters anymore: dealing the best damage while flying, getting invisible, scrying, reading minds, etc. 

I'll wait and see how that unfolds.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 30, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> What? The assumption that the Fighter is the best at combat, that they're the toughest member of the party, that their skills are mundane, is not a 4e thing. It was true in AD&D and BD&D, so I can't see what your complaint is here.




I have no issue with the fighter being the best at combat that is very general statement again its like saying the magic user is the best at using magic...and your point is what besides stating the obvious? When you say the fighter takes out WAVES (plural) of enemies each ROUND (singular) I don't really see this as a baseline from which you build towards prior editions. In a vaccum I have no issue with it, but in the context of building one edition to rule them or should I say include them all it doesn't sound right. Again the mechanical reality might change this but we dont have the mechanics just the statement.


----------



## Stoat (Apr 30, 2012)

This quote:

"The fighter’s many hit points and high AC renders many monsters’ attacks powerless."

Makes me a little nervous.  I want fighters to have high survivability.  I want them to be able to absorb tremendous amounts of damage and keep coming.  I don't want them to literally ignore attacks.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 30, 2012)

This article raises some fine goals but ultimately i dont think it answers the big question people have: will fighter operate using a powers system like 4e or be more in the classic mold. I support all the points he made, and i think few wiuld disagree except folkswho really need the mage to be the powerhouse at 18th level. But what is going to make or break the game for me is how they achieve these design principles. 

To give an exampke. One way to balance out the fighter and make him equal with the wizard as he levels is to do what they did in 4e and give them encuonters, dailies, healing surges, etc. Mechanically this will achievebalance but it doesn't appeal to me. I would rather they do something like give the fighter the consisten ability to dish out more damage than other characters (or at least on average). Maybe in physical cmbat they get a steady damage bonus linked to level. Then give them other abillities that are not keyed to the 4e system. Perhaps the abillity to ignore attacks of opportunity (somewhow tied to level---maybe an increasing penalty for foes opportunity attacks). And dont put these abilities into a feat pool that other characters can access.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 30, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> "Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard. It’s all too easy for combinations of spells to make the wizard a far more potent enemy or character, especially if a wizard can unleash his or her spells in rapid succession. A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round. Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter."
> 
> This sounds exactly like the sort of thing I would expect to hear from 4E designers. The fighter taking out <waves> each round models which prior edition exactly as a base line? Sounds more like stuff that would needed to be stipped away and not added to emulate previous editions. Its hard to know without seeing the mechanics but you make vague statements you leave things open to various interpritations. Roland also cleaved a mountain with his sword, this models which previous edition as a base line?




I will say i agree to an extent in that it indicates he probably buys into a lot of assumptions behind 4E. For me i do think the 3e wizard was a bit overpowered. But the way to fix it isn't to restructurethegame or suck the life out of mages. Just look at what wasgoing on prior to 3e and then apply ose lessons well. Casting times, casting consequences and making it harder to manufacture magic item can all go a long way to bringing ore balance to the game without fundamentally reshaping it.


----------



## Gold Roger (Apr 30, 2012)

Heh, I see the panic train is still in town.

Really we have not enough data to judge what these design goals actually mean for the game.

I can get them in very rough principle, but it doesn't tell us much about "new D&D".


We got some hard data on the playtest though. It's pretty much what I expected, starting very small. I guess I'll run playtest sessions as a bunch of one-shot games. That would allow playing with a greater range of different people than a campaign and then, when playtest gets "campaignable" I'd be able to measure who's interested and suited to join in the long run.

That might be pretty nice, actually. Just hope they give high level enough testing as well.


----------



## Njall (Apr 30, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> "Too often in D&D, the high-level fighter is the flunky to a high-level wizard. It’s all too easy for combinations of spells to make the wizard a far more potent enemy or character, especially if a wizard can unleash his or her spells in rapid succession. A wizard might annihilate a small army of orcs with a volley of fireballs and cones of cold. The fighter does the same sword blow by sword blow, taking down waves of orcs each round. Balancing the classes at high levels is perhaps the highest priority for the fighter."
> 
> This sounds exactly like the sort of thing I would expect to hear from 4E designers. The fighter taking out <waves> each round models which prior edition exactly as a base line? Sounds more like stuff that would needed to be stipped away and not added to emulate previous editions. Its hard to know without seeing the mechanics but you make vague statements you leave things open to various interpritations. Roland also cleaved a mountain with his sword, this models which previous edition as a base line?




This sounds exactly like the sort of thing that you should expect to be hearing from just about any game designer, especially from someone that's designing a class based game.
He's talking about fighters here, and he's assuring people that he's going to address what's considered a problem with the class; that's exactly what a good designer should be doing: he's providing actual info on how he's going to fix said problem. So, unless you think that "being clear, concise and going straight to the point" and "discussing balance" are 4e specific things...
The fighter taking out waves of mooks each round models  0e ( and 1e, IIRC ) perfectly, BTW, and the same goes for some builds of 3.5 ( or, even better, 3.0 ) fighters (Cleave and Great Cleave anyone? A fighter with great cleave can easily mop the floor with a huge number of lower level foes, especially at higher levels).


----------



## GM Dave (Apr 30, 2012)

tlantl said:


> One way I see is to make the wizard's spells dangerous for him to use. Make the fireball do what fireballs do. If he wants to play with fire then things should get burned. Shoot a 60 foot lightning bolt in a 30 foot room it bounces back at you. Summon a demon without the proper protections, the demon eats _you_ first.
> 
> A whole lot of spells lost their capacity to make the caster's life suck. If the cost of components, miscasting, side effects, being hit while casting, and bad planning return to the reality of spell casting then a lot of the caster's awesome power is contained.
> 
> Honestly reducing or limiting the number of dice a spell does for damage is a pitiful replacement for the hazards of spell casting.




Does this mean the greatest wizard of the Realms will now be known as El - Minimum - ster?



Boy, someone's gonna be cranky when they get back from hell.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 30, 2012)

Njall said:


> The fighter taking out waves of mooks each round models  0e ( and 1e, IIRC ) perfectly, BTW, and the same goes for some builds of 3.5 ( or, even better, 3.0 ) fighters (Cleave and Great Cleave anyone? A fighter with great cleave can easily mop the floor with a huge number of lower level foes, especially at higher levels).



I've played every edition except chainmail all I can say is what a wave of foes means to you must be quite different from what it means to me. He did not say a wave of foes in a round he said waves of foes in a single round not a statement I can reconcile with prior editions. Again mechanically it might all make sense we don't have the mechanics what we do have is his words. WaveS in a round not wave in a round.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 30, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> 10th level is not the endgame in 1st Ed.




It's when you enter the endgame (give or take a level depending on the class).  It's when you are at name level.  It's when you stop rolling for hit points.  It's also when the fighters get castles, the thieves get guilds, and the wizards get towers.  As class features.  Yes a lot of groups abandoned it and it was given up by TSR in 2e before being taken out of the game by WoTC because it wasn't popular.  But "By this axe I rule" was (according to old geezer on rpg.net who was at both Gygax's and Arneson's tables) intended to be and actually was the endgame for D&D.



Ratskinner said:


> I think the bigger issue is that the power curve is undefined. That is, the "core" of D&D doesn't make very strong statements about what different levels mean in terms of the narrative assumptions. So what does 20th level mean to D&D? What does 10th or even 1st?




In 1st, 10th is when you start getting given castles and towers and reach name level.  At 1st you are trained and bloodied - either as a caster you can cast spells or as a fighter you're actually a veteran who's survived a battle or two.  Level names helped.

In other editions it's much more nebulous.

[quoet]AD&D stopped at 10th? News to me.[/quote]

No.  It was the _endgame_.  Not the end of the game.  The game changed at that point by the rules and by the intent.  However not everyone wanted to bother with dominioneering rather than dungeoneering.



> However, we should also provide for the folks who want Ned Stark and Grand Maester Pycelle, and for the folks who want Croaker and the Lady, and for the folks who want Arthur and Merlin.




Cap the levels for the lower power options?  Or just say you can't do it all with one system.  I don't mind Arthur and Merlin.  What I mind is Arthur and Dr. Strange.  Merlin was a Bard and Gandalf only cast like a 4th level druid according to Dragon.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> So...how are they equal if the wizard is incapable of beating the fighter?
> If a 20th level fighter can take every spell a 20th level wizard can throw and continue to fight on, it sounds like a 20th level fighter is nigh-unkillable or they are going anti-3.5 and making the fighter (the easiest class and one of the more powerful to play at low levels through most editions) also the most powerful at high end.




The 20th-level wizard can teleport, fly, turn into a snake, create illusions, raise undead, put time on pause, and travel to other planes.

The 20th-level fighter can fight real good.

Therefore, the 20th-level fighter should beat the 20th-level wizard in a fight--if the wizard is fool enough to stick around.


----------



## Njall (Apr 30, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> I've played every edition except chainmail all I can say is what a wave of foes means to you must be quite different from what it means to me. He did not say a wave of foes in a round he said waves of foes in a single round not a statement I can reconcile with prior editions. Again mechanically it might all make sense we don't have the mechanics what we do have is his words. WaveS in a round not wave in a round.




...How do you quantify a single wave? 5 enemies? 3? 10? What does even "wave" mean in this context? 
A high level 3.5 fighter is capable of killing 8-15 enemies each round with cleave ( and without a reach weapon ), for example. Is that a single wave? Multiple waves? 
You're not even getting hung up on a term, you're getting hung up on a single letter...


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 30, 2012)

Njall said:


> ...How do you quantify a single wave? 5 enemies? 3? 10? What does even "wave" mean in this context?
> A high level 3.5 fighter is capable of killing 8-15 enemies each round with cleave ( and without a reach weapon ), for example. Is that a single wave? Multiple waves?
> You're not even getting hung up on a term, you're getting hung up on a single letter...




Yes please tell us what you think he means by a wave then tell us if for example you mention it being 10 tell me how my 1E fighter kills 20-30-40 enemies in a single round? Mine could not...


----------



## Njall (Apr 30, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> Yes please tell us what you think he means by a wave then tell us if for example you mention it being 10 tell me how my 1E fighter kills 20-30-40 enemies in a single round? Mine could not...





But he's not saying "Wave=10 enemies"! You're assuming it. It could just be hyperbole, or he could just mean "3-5 foes (low level) foes a round", which is perfectly in line with what a fighter could do in just about every other edition of D&D...
And, BTW, a 4e fighter cannot kill 20-40 enemies a round, not even mooks, so I don't really see how " killing waves of enemies per round" equates "4e fighter".


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 30, 2012)

Njall said:


> But he's not saying "Wave=10 enemies"! You're assuming it. It could just be hyperbole, or he could just mean "3-5 foes (low level) foes a round", which is perfectly in line with what a fighter could do in just about every other edition of D&D...
> And, BTW, a 4e fighter cannot kill 20-40 enemies a round, not even mooks, so I don't really see how " killing waves of enemies per round" equates "4e fighter".



No Fighter balanced with Wizard might equate 4E to me depending upon how it is achieved.


----------



## GM Dave (Apr 30, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> This article raises some fine goals but ultimately i dont think it answers the big question people have: will fighter operate using a powers system like 4e or be more in the classic mold. I support all the points he made, and i think few wiuld disagree except folkswho really need the mage to be the powerhouse at 18th level. But what is going to make or break the game for me is how they achieve these design principles.
> 
> To give an exampke. One way to balance out the fighter and make him equal with the wizard as he levels is to do what they did in 4e and give them encuonters, dailies, healing surges, etc. Mechanically this will achievebalance but it doesn't appeal to me. I would rather they do something like give the fighter the consisten ability to dish out more damage than other characters (or at least on average). Maybe in physical cmbat they get a steady damage bonus linked to level. Then give them other abillities that are not keyed to the 4e system. Perhaps the abillity to ignore attacks of opportunity (somewhow tied to level---maybe an increasing penalty for foes opportunity attacks). And dont put these abilities into a feat pool that other characters can access.




Two points to mostly end this discussion.

1>  Despite NDAs, I have not heard any talk or seen any glimpses of character sheets that would suggest that the core elements of the game has fighters using Daily, Encounters, etc (and the discussion with the designers in their seminars would suggest that they were planning to stay away from this).

This does not mean they might have something like Essentials where they 'build in' things like stance choices and options to burst damage like the Essential's Fighter.

2>  With the playtest less then 4 weeks away, I'm sure that we'll get some reveal on this either before then when they discuss the package they are rolling out.  The latest this will likely be answered will be May 24th when we see the first set of characters.

Now, they may have plans to have an option package that brings in the option to replace some elements with more 4e style attack elements and encounter powers but there has been no indications from anyone that has reported doing any sort of playtesting and I think that would have leaked out (not 100% on that but some elements have leaked out already).


----------



## Njall (Apr 30, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> No Fighter balanced with Wizard might equate 4E to me depending upon how it is achieved.




In 4e, fighters were balanced with wizards in combat first and foremost. He's saying that's not the case in the very first point he makes: 
1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting!
However the classes are balanced with each other, that's not the kind of balance that 4e achieved ( which can be a good or bad thing, depending on where you stand ), because 4e balanced them around combat, and Mearls states pretty clearly that it's not the case in 5e...


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 30, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> The 20th-level wizard can teleport, fly, turn into a snake, create illusions, raise undead, put time on pause, and travel to other planes.
> 
> The 20th-level fighter can fight real good.
> 
> Therefore, the 20th-level fighter should beat the 20th-level wizard in a fight--if the wizard is fool enough to stick around.




So we can assume from this that all of the HOLD spells are out.  Because a bad roll would allow the wizard to potentially kill the fighter, no save or die exist anymore, charms are also out, Wish doesn't exist, etc.

So...basically, play a fighter.  Yah, no thanks.


----------



## Njall (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> So we can assume from this that all of the HOLD spells are out.  Because a bad roll would allow the wizard to potentially kill the fighter, no save or die exist anymore, charms are also out, Wish doesn't exist, etc.
> 
> So...basically, play a fighter.  Yah, no thanks.




No, but you could assume that the "hold" spells only last 1 round against an equal level fighter, so that the wizard has the time to catch his breath and move away rather than ending the fight outright. 
Also, you could assume that charm spells won't work against someone that's actively attacking you, and that dominate spells only last one round as well. 
IOW, you're assuming a lot of things that aren't necessarily implied by what Mearls said, or by the fact that fighters are supposed to be the best at fighting.


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> So we can assume from this that all of the HOLD spells are out.  Because a bad roll would allow the wizard to potentially kill the fighter, no save or die exist anymore, charms are also out, Wish doesn't exist, etc.
> 
> So...basically, play a fighter.  Yah, no thanks.




But people (not you specifically) seem to be forgetting relativity!.

Your fighter (level 10)and your wizard (level 10) in the party should be equal in some nebulous I'm not a game designer way for effectiveness.

And if the fighter should happen to pin down a level 10 bad guy wizard...in melee...he probably wins...if he can't he might lose (balance see?)

However, the more common situation is that the fighter and wizard (level 10) are going out to kill the big bad evil necromancer who happens to be 15th level plus (just a wag)...if the fighter happens to get one on one with that wizard...there might be a problem.


So best at fighting doesn't mean the fighter shrugs off all wizards stuff and sticks them in the heart Conan style, but he does have a good chance with level appropriate challenges his group is facing.


P.S.  Why do we discuss fighter versus wizard in a vacuum anyway?  Are the players always fighting each other?


----------



## GM Dave (Apr 30, 2012)

Njall said:


> But he's not saying "Wave=10 enemies"! You're assuming it. It could just be hyperbole, or he could just mean "3-5 foes (low level) foes a round", which is perfectly in line with what a fighter could do in just about every other edition of D&D...
> And, BTW, a 4e fighter cannot kill 20-40 enemies a round, not even mooks, so I don't really see how " killing waves of enemies per round" equates "4e fighter".




Really?

In 1st ed my my level 10 fighter could attack and kill 10 goblins per round (they were in the 1 hit die category).  This was to allow Hero's to go into Battles and kill swaths of Men-at-Arms or the equivalent.

In 3rd ed Fighters had Cleave and Whirlwind attack (with things like Bloody Road when you got up to higher levels or the Dervish Prestige class).  I ran a Reach specialized Dervish and I moved and hit many opponents a round.

In 4ed, I'm not an expert on all the additional books that came out but from the core book that was first produced we have Encounter level 27 Cruel Reaper which allows you to hit everyone in a burst around, then shift, and do it again.  That is potentially 8 targets per attack for a total of 16 targets.

At Epic level there are many ways to get that Encounter power back or to use it at second time and if you spend an Action point then you can do that Cruel Reaper and something else on the same round.

Of course, Wizards have Encounter 27 powers that can affect Burst 5 (Prismatic Spray) or Blast 5 (Black fire).

But minions are not a real problem in 4e if you have a Dragonborn on the team at level 1 they can do a blast 3 which could potentially wipe out 9 minions (equivalent in the system to two full opponents) with one breath attack.


----------



## Mattachine (Apr 30, 2012)

Yes, thank you, Mike.

"Mundane fighters" exist in a world with dragons and spells. That means different from mundane in the real world. 

I wish I had said that in the context of some of the other debates on this forum.


----------



## Iosue (Apr 30, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> The fighter taking out <waves> each round models which prior edition exactly as a base line?




2e.  A 13+ level fighter with weapon specialization gets 5 attacks every two rounds.  Figure a STR 17, and a +1 sword, and they get a +3 to hit and +4 to damage.  Orcs have an AC of 6, and average hp of 4.5.  The fighter will hit on a 2 or better and do at least 5 points of damage no matter what his weapon.  The fighter probably has AC 0 by now, so the orcs will need a 19 or a 20 to hit him.  And the same goes for skeletons, let alone the weaker foes like kobolds, goblins, gibberlings, and most humans such as bandits and guards.  I think 2-3 of these type foes per round qualifies as waves.

Also, BECMI.  BECMI fighters get an additional attack when they can hit their foes with a 2.  So now we have a 13th level fighter, with STR 17, a +1 sword, and an Expert level of Weapon Mastery (+4), let's say with a sword.  That's a +7 to-hit, which means any monster with AC of 2 or lower activates the fighter's additional attack.  He rolls 2d8+3 damage: 5-19 points of damage.  And if he inflicts max damage or disarms two opponents or isn't touched by an attack in a round, then he gets to force a morale check on 8 hit dice worth of creatures.  Two orcs guaranteed to go down every round, and eight of them running or surrendering after getting just a taste of his prowess.  Fighters also get another additional attack 24th level, and another at 36th level.

And these are still conservative examples.  We're not talking fighters with 18 strength, or +3 magic weapons, or Grand Mastery of their weapon.  A 24th level fighter with 18 STR, a +3 sword, and Grand Mastery gets 3 attacks when facing enemies with an AC of _-11_ or worse, and does 2d6+14 points of damage (anything with 2 HD or less is killed at will).  Plus he does an additional point of damage for every level of AC worse than 9 (due to Dex or magical penalties).

Even in older editions of D&D, some effort was made so that a relatively high-level fighter could mow down waves of cannon fodder.



> Roland also cleaved a mountain with his sword, this models which previous edition as a base line?



None of them.  Certainly not 4e.  Doesn't mean that 5e shouldn't be able to model high-memetic, romantic, and mythic heroes.

Edit: And wow, this thread really moved along while I was typing that out...


----------



## Storminator (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> So we can assume from this that all of the HOLD spells are out.  Because a bad roll would allow the wizard to potentially kill the fighter, no save or die exist anymore, charms are also out, Wish doesn't exist, etc.
> 
> So...basically, play a fighter.  Yah, no thanks.




Or maybe Hold (and a bad roll) means you stop the high level fighter for a round, then he rolls again, and you can't kill a high level Held fighter in one round if you're a wizard. Or maybe a high level fighter gets an action point that lets him shrug off a spell. Or maybe Hold only works on characters with less than 4 HD. Or maybe a high level fighter can javelin a wizard to death in one round, so you better hide instead of risking Hold Person. Or . . . 

PS


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> So we can assume from this that all of the HOLD spells are out.  Because a bad roll would allow the wizard to potentially kill the fighter, no save or die exist anymore, charms are also out, Wish doesn't exist, etc.
> 
> So...basically, play a fighter.  Yah, no thanks.




No.  We can't assume that.  Because there's absolutely no evidence to support that assumption.  Sure, a person could _invent_ that assumption because they have some ridiculous need for the wizard to be the end-all-and-be-all of classes in the game and anything that is mentioned that might even remotely impinge on that has to be quickly snuffed out with veiled, sarcastic remarks... but they are in no way actually correct.


----------



## Njall (Apr 30, 2012)

GM Dave said:


> Really?
> 
> In 1st ed my my level 10 fighter could attack and kill 10 goblins per round (they were in the 1 hit die category).  This was to allow Hero's to go into Battles and kill swaths of Men-at-Arms or the equivalent.
> 
> ...




Well, first, with Cruel Reaper you can only shift 2 squares, so at most you're taking out 5-6 opponents with the second swipe; second, it's 1/encounter, so it's not like he's taking out "20 opponents/round", he can kill quite a bit of minions ( and only minions, because you're not taking out level appropriate standard opponents with a single attack, or even low level standard opponents ) and then he's back to 1 opponent per round, whereas the 1e fighter can go on killing 10/20 mooks all day long. 
Third, it's nothing a 3.5 fighter with a great cleave and a reach weapon ( or, better yet, a spiked chain ) couldn't blow out of the water each and every round.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 30, 2012)

Big thumbs up on this one, with this caveat:

I don't want any one class to be "the best at fighting", to the degree Mike suggests. No more than a minor edge to make up for a relative lack of non-combat stuff. But even then, I'd rather carve out a decent niche for non-combat capabilities for the Fighter.

There shouldn't be major tradeoffs between combat and non-combat in DnD. Not unless we're getting some serious mechanical support for stuff other than fighting, far beyond anything DnD has ever had. I'm concerned that they won't, since there seems to be a recurring theme of embracing DM fiat. And as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing as being "good" at something, if success or failure is determined by DM fiat, and not by mechanics.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Apr 30, 2012)

This article, in my mind, is pure win.  But a couple of points 

*1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting!*
Absolutely required.  The Fighter class (and others in the Warrior sub-class) should be designed to overcome challenges by physical combat.  Magic Users and Priest use magic to overcome problems.  Likewise, Rogue classes use skills, trickery, deceit, stealth, and all sorts of mundane non-combat skills overcome challenges.  

Fighting should not be the obvious answer to every problem, but a possible solution.  

*6. A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal*
Define equal.  The problem with a high-level wizard is that they have far more tricks then a high-level fighter.  Take the example given:  defeat an army of orcs.

The Fighter might be able to defeat them, but it should be over several rounds of combat.  The fighter should win because he's tougher and has greater skill of arms then the army of orcs.  The fighter should win because he's selected the correct tactics to face the army (heavy armor and a shield, or whatever the situation might demand).

That's the direct method.  Unfortunately, that's what the fighter is trained to do.  Sure, they might train the villagers to help or challenge an orc champion to one-on-one combat.  Regardless, the fighter is going to have to defeat the orc army through force of arms.

The Wizard has a direct method too: fireball and cone of cold.  However, this is arguably the worst way for the Wizard to defeat the orc army.  What if he rolls poorly on his initiative.  The fighter has a chance to survive the initial orc onslaught but the wizard doesn't have the toughness or skill of arms to last.  

However, the Wizard has numerous spells to overcome the problem without ever appearing on the battlefield.  He could raise an army of undead from the town cemetery, he could use invisibility and charm person to befriend the orc commander, he could use illusions to trick and demoralize the orc army.  The wizard has a whole spell book of solutions that don't involve matching the orc army blow for blow.

Both characters have the means to defeat the army, but the fighter might expend 90% of his Hit Points to do it while a clever wizard might only expend one or two spells.  The outcome is the same, are they equal?


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 30, 2012)

dkyle said:


> Big thumbs up on this one, with this caveat:
> 
> I don't want any one class to be "the best at fighting", to the degree Mike suggests. No more than a minor edge to make up for a relative lack of non-combat stuff. But even then, I'd rather carve out a decent niche for non-combat capabilities for the Fighter.




Depending upon the character creation rules you might have a scenario where instead of making a ranger the optimal choice becomes customizing your fighter to make him more ranger like same thing with your paladin or rogue. If the fighter is superior to the other melee classes how do you protect those classes without making the fighter the guy who can only do athlectics endurance intimidate etc?


----------



## Choranzanus (Apr 30, 2012)

In my opinion fighters are really dependent on how exactly fighting system works. For example, I disagree that fighters could not be defenders in past editions, I think when you used initiative system tacticaly that was quite possible. But in any case that is something that can be done without resorting to things like marking. In past (2e times) mages had trouble with spell failure and they were more limited in spells. I would also remove critical hits from the game and put them back stronger as special ability of fighters (or warriors to be precise). 

What I would like to hear:
1) That fighters will reconcile doing large damage with stoping enemies in their tracks (being a defender). Because these things really support each other and I dont thing having different builds of this type makes much sense.
2) No powers or the like. I am not totally opposed to per day abilities but what is really not acceptable is some explanations of them like you have lucky hit and so you do more damage etc. You dont choose to have luck, you should actually roll high on attack roll or something etc.
3) Fighters should really be capable of fighting with all weapons, especialy ranged and melee. The 4e fighter was a disaster in this sense.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 30, 2012)

Perhaps on the issues of fighter distinctiveness and what they do outside of combat are answered the same way:  Fighters are all (equally, or very close to equally) the best at combat, but their customization (e.g. backgrounds, skills, etc.) determine how they contribute outside of combat?

I'm not sure what I think about that.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 30, 2012)

SkidAce said:


> But people (not you specifically) seem to be forgetting relativity!.
> 
> Your fighter (level 10)and your wizard (level 10) in the party should be equal in some nebulous I'm not a game designer way for effectiveness.
> 
> ...




It says he can take every spell a wizard can throw at him, and keep fighting.  Not that he can win 50% of the time, or that he has to pin the wizard down or lose.  It specifically said ALL of the wizards spells, and continue to fight.


----------



## Njall (Apr 30, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> Depending upon the character creation rules you might have a scenario where instead of making a ranger the optimal choice becomes customizing your fighter to make him more ranger like same thing with your paladin or rogue. If the fighter is superior to the other melee classes how do you protect those classes without making the fighter the guy who can only do athlectics endurance intimidate etc?




That's an interesting question. 
They said that they're basing the game on the assumption that every character should be at least competent at what they call "the three pillars of the game": Roleplaying, Exploration, Combat.

So, now, say that the fighter is great with every weapon and every combat style. He's, however, only decent at intimidating stuff, and he's a good tracker, but can't make a survival check for the life of his ( literally).

Conversely, a ranger might choose to be a great archer ( and mediocre with a sword ), to be as good as the fighter when it comes to scaring people, and has enough resources to be a great tracker, to survive just about any environment and to give the party a boost to their travel speed all day long, (while, for example, a rogue would be slightly worse at combat than your average ranger, great at bluffing, intimidating and diplomacy and pretty good as a scout, and so forth).

In the end, I'd say that it depends on how you see a ranger... if you think a ranger is a fighter with some woodsy skills, then yeah, he'll probably be better represented by a fighter with a background; if you think that he's a scout that's really good at fighting, however, you might not have the resources you need to model him if you start off as a fighter.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 30, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> No.  We can't assume that.  Because there's absolutely no evidence to support that assumption.  Sure, a person could _invent_ that assumption because they have some ridiculous need for the wizard to be the end-all-and-be-all of classes in the game and anything that is mentioned that might even remotely impinge on that has to be quickly snuffed out with veiled, sarcastic remarks... but they are in no way actually correct.




Yes we can assume that.

It specifically says a high level fighter can shrug off ALL of the spells a high level wizard can toss at him and keep fighting.  ALL.  

This means either A) Fighters are immune to magic. or B) Save or Die doesn't exist 

And FYI, I play clerics about 80% of the time, prop that strawman up!


----------



## Njall (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> It says he can take every spell a wizard can throw at him, and keep fighting.  Not that he can win 50% of the time, or that he has to pin the wizard down or lose.  It specifically said ALL of the wizards spells, and continue to fight.




Nope, it doesn't. "Being the best at fighting"=/= "won't go down in a straight fight, ever".
Let's assume a duel between a wizard and a fighter. If the fighter wins 60% of the time, he's "better than the wizard" at fighting. If he has a 60% to beat any other opponent, then he's legitimately "the best at fighting", but he'll be beaten from time to time. 
You're conflating "being the best at fighting" with "being invincibile"... that's not the same.
Someone that's invincible is certainly the best at fighting, but the reverse is not true.


----------



## GM Dave (Apr 30, 2012)

Storminator said:


> Or maybe Hold (and a bad roll) means you stop the high level fighter for a round, then he rolls again, and you can't kill a high level Held fighter in one round if you're a wizard. Or maybe a high level fighter gets an action point that lets him shrug off a spell. Or maybe Hold only works on characters with less than 4 HD. Or maybe a high level fighter can javelin a wizard to death in one round, so you better hide instead of risking Hold Person. Or . . .
> 
> PS




.. or to avoid the one Hold is equivalent to 200 hp of damage that they say Hold has an exhaustion mechanic.  Each hold laid on a target does level x5 of exhaustion.

A 10th level Wizard hits with a Hold for 50 hp of exhaustion.  When the total reaches 200 or the combination of damage and exhaustion then the target is held.

Exhaustion might burn off at the rate of 1 hp per melee round.  This means a fighter could break out of the hold if left around for a while and the Wizard does not have enough spells to keep topping up the Hold.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 30, 2012)

Njall said:


> Nope, it doesn't. "Being the best at fighting"=/= "won't go down in a straight fight, ever".
> Let's assume a duel between a wizard and a fighter. If the fighter wins 60% of the time, he's "better than the wizard" at fighting. If he has a 60% to beat any other opponent, then he's legitimately "the best at fighting", but he'll be beaten from time to time.
> You're conflating "being the best at fighting" with "being invincibile"... that's not the same.
> Someone that's invincible is certainly the best at fighting, but the reverse is not true.






> Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting.




I don't think it gets much clearer than what Mike himself said.  EVERY SPELL and keeps fighting.  Wizard is out of spells = easy fighter kill.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Apr 30, 2012)

Iosue said:


> Also, BECMI.  BECMI fighters get an additional attack when they can hit their foes with a 2.  So now we have a 13th level fighter, with STR 17, a +1 sword, and an Expert level of Weapon Mastery (+4), let's say with a sword.  That's a +7 to-hit, which means any monster with AC of 2 or lower activates the fighter's additional attack.  He rolls 2d8+3 damage: 5-19 points of damage.  And if he inflicts max damage or disarms two opponents or isn't touched by an attack in a round, then he gets to force a morale check on 8 hit dice worth of creatures.  Two orcs guaranteed to go down every round, and eight of them running or surrendering after getting just a taste of his prowess.  Fighters also get another additional attack 24th level, and another at 36th level.




Can you move and make all the attacks in one round, or do you have to remain stationary?


----------



## dkyle (Apr 30, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> Depending upon the character creation rules you might have a scenario where instead of making a ranger the optimal choice becomes customizing your fighter to make him more ranger like same thing with your paladin or rogue. If the fighter is superior to the other melee classes how do you protect those classes without making the fighter the guy who can only do athlectics endurance intimidate etc?




Yes, that's a good reason not to simply make the Fighter the best at fighting.  There will be an intense pressure to just play a Fighter, and get as much non-combat stuff out of Backgrounds as possible, to get both the best fighting, and "good enough" non-combat. Since when dealing with DM fiat, all a player really needs is something to point to when convincing the DM to let them do something.

My ideal would be to balance all classes on both combat capabilities, and non-combat capabilities, and only have serious tradeoffs within those two spheres. But that doesn't seem like what they are going for.

However, if they do have some awesome non-combat mechanics in store for us, than I'd be more OK with having the tradeoffs between combat and non-combat they seem to be going for.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Apr 30, 2012)

Some things I didn't see addressed.

The Three Pillars approach - Combat, exploration, roleplay.
They have said that some characters will be better at one of those than the other, but all will have core competence in each.

So the Fighter is the best at fighting - Combat is where he shine.  In the exploration side he is effective, but the Rogue or Ranger can outshine him.  Maybe in the roleplay side (perhaps social stuff) the bard shines, while the fighter is competent, but not the best (assuming mechanical input into roleplaying which may be a big assumption).

So yeah the fighter is the best at fighting, doesn't mean he dominates the game, just shines the most in combat. 

I also remember the whole "I wish I was a fighter" "I wish I was a wizard" thing from one of the older articles - and I could see this (completely made up).

Round 1 - fighter wads into the big group of enemies and takes down 2. Wizard dailies and damages on.
Round 2 - Fighter does something special and drops 3 more. Wizard finished off his first one.
Round 3 - fighter takes down 2, wizard rolls well and takes 1 down.
Round 4 - fighter takes down 3 again, and wizard seeing that there are still a whole bunch of them throws a fireball and drops the last 5.

4 round combat - fighter takes out 10, wizard 8. Fighter got some special stuff (taking out 3 in two other rounds) and wizard got his fireball.

Again, I'm just pulling this out of thin air, but that could be a way for the wizard to do well in combat, but the fighter outshines him.


----------



## Iosue (Apr 30, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Can you move and make all the attacks in one round, or do you have to remain stationary?



Movement in BECMI is a separate part of the combat sequence from Melee, so you can move and still use all your attacks.  OR, you can use the extra attack for extra movement or actions.  The BECMI fighter is a dynamic dynamo of dynamite action.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Apr 30, 2012)

Iosue said:


> Movement in BECMI is a separate part of the combat sequence from Melee, so you can move and still use all your attacks.  OR, you can use the extra attack for extra movement or actions.  The BECMI fighter is a dynamic dynamo of dynamite action.




Right on, thanks, and rounds are 10 seconds, right, so you could move up to 40 feet and get all your attacks?


----------



## Njall (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> I don't think it gets much clearer than what Mike himself said.  EVERY SPELL and keeps fighting.  Wizard is out of spells = easy fighter kill.




Even assuming that he *literally* means *every* spell and that it's not just hyperbole (which it probably is) then stop throwing offensive spells at the fighter? Summon some monsters, cast invisibility, teleport away, drop a boulder on him with telekinesis and so forth. He doesn't say that he can dispel each and every spell the wizard casts, does he?
Also, keep in mind that D&D is not a PvP game. Even if Fighters were immune to spells ( something that's not a given at all ), how effective your wizard is in a game depends on how he performs against monsters and NPCs, not against his fellow adventurers.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> I don't think it gets much clearer than what Mike himself said.  EVERY SPELL and keeps fighting.  Wizard is out of spells = easy fighter kill.




He might mean "this is how it could reasonably play out", or perhaps "expected to play out", not "this is how it will always play out".

But, really, if we _are_ getting a system where there are major tradeoffs between combat, exploration, and interaction, then _shouldn't_ the Fighter, if he's as primarily dedicated to combat as he's traditionally been, be expected to beat the Wizard, who has traditionally had much greater non-combat capabilities than the Fighter? If the Wizard is competitive on combat, but much better on other things, that's not balance.

On the other hand, if your point is that giving one class such a big leg up in combat, regardless of the other "pillars", is a bad idea, then I would agree with you.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> Yes we can assume that.
> 
> It specifically says a high level fighter can shrug off ALL of the spells a high level wizard can toss at him and keep fighting.  ALL.
> 
> ...




The actual quote is...

_"Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting."_

So, no... saying that the fighter is IMMUNE to ALL MAGIC is an assumption that is in no way accurate.  It says he will _absorb_ the punishment.  He _takes_ the punishment from the magic.  He doesn't _ignore_ it.  He takes it.

He then throws off the magic effects.  Does that therefore mean NO magic effect affects him EVER?  Not at all.  "Throwing them off" might require a round, maybe two rounds.  Who knows?  "Throws off" is not a synonym for "Ignores", unless you assume further than you probably should.

And he keeps on fighting.  But do we know HOW WELL he keeps on fighting?  Nope.  No indication AT ALL what "keeps on fighting" actually means.  For all we know... Cleric throws that "Hold Person" spell at the fighter and the fighter gets Held for two rounds.  He then soaks up the damage the cleric deals to him while he's paralyzed.  He then throws off the effect of the Hold, and maybe he's Slowed for a round or two after that, or perhaps he has some penalties to combat?  Again, we don't know.

But that is a perfectly fine interpretation of what Mearls' said, without going so far afield as to actually believe the Hold Person or Wish spells have been stripped from the game as you assumed.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 30, 2012)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> The Wizard has a direct method too: fireball and cone of cold. However, this is arguably the worst way for the Wizard to defeat the orc army. What if he rolls poorly on his initiative.




Fly and Protection from Arrows.  At that point ordinary 3.X orcs only hurt him on a crit.  He does this before rolling initiative.  At this point he can plink away with a crossbow if he wants.



> The fighter has a chance to survive the initial orc onslaught but the wizard doesn't have the toughness or skill of arms to last.




Unless he's remotely prepared.  Or isn't fighting them head on.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> I don't think it gets much clearer than what Mike himself said.  EVERY SPELL and keeps fighting.  Wizard is out of spells = easy fighter kill.




How does that argument go? Something about D&D is a team game; you shouldn't just rely on what's written on your character sheet, you should be creative; it's all right for some classes to be irrelevant at some points in play; D&D isn't just about combat; balance between classes just makes them all the same.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 30, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The actual quote is...
> 
> _"Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting."_
> 
> ...




And save or die?  I notice you left that out.  His comment does not allow for save or die does it?

Wizards are also apparently unable to do 300-400 total pts of damage with every single of their spells, as a fighter can stand there and absorb all of their most damaging spells and keep fighting.


----------



## Tehnai (Apr 30, 2012)

My only question is this one :

Can my fighter kill a wizard by throwing a chair?


----------



## Mage of Spellford (Apr 30, 2012)

Hi,

I enjoy the trope (typical of many s&s novels) of the fighter shrugging off the wizard's spells and I heartily agree that the imbalance in 3/3.5e needs to be adjusted. Perhaps as the fighter increases in level his hitpoints should rise geometrically. Then basing saving throws on the amount of hitpoints remaining might be a reasonable mechanic.

To me hitpoints have always been a reflection of luck, skill, stamina, as well as physical constitution. A fighter with full hitpoints should be an adversary that no wizard can easily overcome.

Another idea: The easiest way to balance out wizards is to ensure that spells of power take time to cast. If a wizard is engaged in melee -- he should be able to cast (with difficulty) some sort of escape spell or a minor hindrance spell that can provide him the opportunity to escape but they should not be able to cast a melee ending spell while in physical combat -- that to me was the crux of the problem. 

Wizards should be powerful spell casters that can take down armies but if you can get your hands around their throat it should be game over for them. Wizards of any level should not have enough hitpoints or high enough AC to survive hand-to-hand or even missile weapons for any length of time.

MK


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 30, 2012)

dkyle said:


> He might mean "this is how it could reasonably play out", or perhaps "expected to play out", not "this is how it will always play out".
> 
> But, really, if we _are_ getting a system where there are major tradeoffs between combat, exploration, and interaction, then _shouldn't_ the Fighter, if he's as primarily dedicated to combat as he's traditionally been, be expected to beat the Wizard, who has traditionally had much greater non-combat capabilities than the Fighter? If the Wizard is competitive on combat, but much better on other things, that's not balance.
> 
> On the other hand, if your point is that giving one class such a big leg up in combat, regardless of the other "pillars", is a bad idea, then I would agree with you.




I don't expect a wizard to survive a fighter beating on him for a few rounds.
I don't expect a wizard to survive a rogue smacking him around for a few rounds, or a cleric or a ranger
I don't expect a fighter to survive the entire arsenal a wizard can unleash in 10-12 rounds.

No class should be able to stand there leaning on their weapon while a 20th level wizard lines him up for his entire spell lineup and then shrug and kill him.

That isn't good design.  If the fighter wins the most of the time when they start 30ft apart, cool.  If the fighter wins 60/40 when they are at range, ok.  If the fighter loses when the wizard has time to fully buff, at range and some bad luck, great.  That sounds right.

The fighter being able to absorb everything the wizard can throw at him, being THAT much better than everyone else at fighting, is not ok.


----------



## the Jester (Apr 30, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> Barbarians should be a background, berserkers should be a theme.
> 
> Warder




As the barbarian is a base class that has been in a couple of Players Handbooks, we _know_ it's going to be a class. We've already been made aware of the "omniinclusion" goal.


----------



## adamc (Apr 30, 2012)

pauljathome said:


> As described, the fighter sounds likely to be over the top to me. Best AC, best hit points, best at taking down waves of opponents, best at dealing damage. So what exactly are the others doing? Having the wizard hold the fighters cape isn't really any better than having the fighter hold the wizards cape




That was my reaction as well. If a ranger is good but not quite as good as a paladin, and a monk is at best only as good as a fighter fighting unarmed, why have these other classes?

To me, being best at tanking -- at absorbing damage and holding off the foes -- should not be combined with being the best at dealing damage. Because, if you do that, the class is too dominant.


----------



## Mengu (Apr 30, 2012)

The article has a lot of words, but says very little to me. It sounds like a bunch of non-committal corporate mumbo jumbo, that's aimed to make people excited.

First of all, the play test being only pregenerated characters, is very disappointing to me. Honestly, they don't need "us" to test and see if the system works with a bunch of canned characters. They can do that themselves, and see what works, what doesn't. Closed betas are more than sufficient for this process. What they need the masses for, is stress testing. Where does the system break? What are emerging trends in tactics or builds, that need to be examined? Is everyone suddenly playing ranged characters and ignoring melee? Is everyone playing a dwarf? Why does no one even look at playing a halfling? These are the things that need to be nailed down in public play test with a large pool of players. So releasing pregenerated characters for play test is just advertisement and a way to keep people involved, but is not really all that encouraging of a step for system development. 

Second, outside of conventions, people rarely play D&D with pregenerated characters. Creating your character is a major part of the D&D experience, and the part that's going to get the most heated feedback.

Third, putting the combat system through some ringer and setting it in stone, is the mistake that 4.0 did. As the system evolved, they ended up having to make significant changes, from introducing expertise feats, to adjusting numbers on all monsters. So the combat system cannot be designed independent of the capabilities of characters.

Now onto the fighter design goals...

1. Fighters are the best fighters... And wizards are the best wizards, and rogues are the best rogues. Well, I can live with those design goals I guess, as long as monsters are the best monsters! This is just a play on words... I could just as easily make the argument, isn't everyone a fighter? I mean we're playing adventurers who are at some point expected to fight. Saying fighters will be the best fighters sounds like they intend to give the paladin, the ranger, the rogue, the barbarian, the monk, etc. handicaps in a fight. Sorry, you're not fighters, you'll just have to resign to mediocrity. This is Sparta. Fighter will win. Doesn't inspire equality (which strangely is the #6 criteria).

2. Completely on board with this... Shouldn't have to pick up a controlling weapon and rushing cleats to perform an intended function. Feats/power/talents, what have you, should sufficiently cover the needs of a fighter build, without having to resort to magic items.

3. yeah, sure, whatever. I want my fighters to be jedi knights, so... I describe them with glowing swords, cutting through metal doors, and jumping 40 foot gaps like it's nothing. Feel free to come to my house and tell me I'm doin' it wrong. They can make what assumptions they will, for system design, but shouldn't assume they know everyone's campaign world. I'd prefer if some of the flavor was left vague.

4. Whoa! First I've ever heard this one. Wizards are versatile. Rogues are versatile. Bards are versatile. Rangers are versatile. Fighters? Meh, they swing weapons. Versatile is not how I would describe them in any edition. If they mean, to say "We will make fighter weapon choices flexible, so you can build an archer fighter, a polearm fighter, or a sword and board fighter with ease, or you can play a generalist fighter" then I'll say okay. People *love* hearing fighters are going to be versatile. But that's not really what they mean, is it? it's just a play on words. You can describe many other classes as versatile.

5. Fighters are tough. Is this a core rule? Or can I sacrifice some of that toughness to hit harder? Wait... Fighters hit the hardest, what am I thinking... Fighters are the best at fighting. And they are the most versatile. So no worries about sacrificing one aspect of fighting for another, woot! Fighters win! Am I supposed to get excited about this? Oh but people love hearing fighters are tough. And so it's out there.

6. Fighters and wizards are equal. Well, this is just a repeat of 4e design philosophies. Sure, people love hearing this too. But is it really telling us how they are going to be different and equal? What is equality? If a wizard can cast fireball twice per day, are they going to have fighters make moving and cleaving attacks that take down multiple enemies twice per day? Is that what they mean by equal? Oh wait... That's been done already, and they are shelving that edition.

This article says a bunch of stuff, that we all want to hear, but it falls to my ears like nothing more than a sales pitch.

And thinking about it more, while I jumped on the band wagon saying, oh that's awesome, when I saw #2, I now realize, despite my caution, I too fell for the sales pitch, hearing what I wanted to hear. They're not saying, they will not make controlling weapons, and rushing cleats any more. Just saying fighter's won't need them to be awesome. But when they exist, they undoubtedly will make them better.

Sorry for the negative tone in this post. But I hate sales pitches that are not based on fact, but merely based on promises.


----------



## Iosue (Apr 30, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Right on, thanks, and rounds are 10 seconds, right, so you could move up to 40 feet and get all your attacks?



Yes, except characters wearing armor move up to 20 feet.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Apr 30, 2012)

How about we save the freak-outs about how under-powered the wizard is until we see both the wizard and the fighter?

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 30, 2012)

Mengu said:


> The article has a lot of words, but says very little to me. It sounds like a bunch of non-committal corporate mumbo jumbo, that's aimed to make people excited.
> 
> First of all, the play test being only pregenerated characters, is very disappointing to me. Honestly, they don't need "us" to test and see if the system works with a bunch of canned characters. They can do that themselves, and see what works, what doesn't. Closed betas are more than sufficient for this process. What they need the masses for, is stress testing. Where does the system break? What are emerging trends in tactics or builds, that need to be examined? Is everyone suddenly playing ranged characters and ignoring melee? Is everyone playing a dwarf? Why does no one even look at playing a halfling? These are the things that need to be nailed down in public play test with a large pool of players. So releasing pregenerated characters for play test is just advertisement and a way to keep people involved, but is not really all that encouraging of a step for system development.
> 
> ...




I also find this worrisome.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 30, 2012)

pauljathome said:
			
		

> As described, the fighter sounds likely to be over the top to me. Best AC, best hit points, best at taking down waves of opponents, best at dealing damage. So what exactly are the others doing? Having the wizard hold the fighters cape isn't really any better than having the fighter hold the wizards cape




People keep forgetting that there's a lot more to this game than attack and damage rolls. 

You want the dragon slayed? Fighter's gonna do the heavy lifting, there.

You want the ancient text deciphered? Wizards. Oh yes.

You want the lock opened? Rogue! Get up here!

You want the townsfolk quieted? Cleric, please remind them how much they love to be alive, and who, ultimately, is responsible for that.

Combat. Exploration. Interaction. Adventures, not encounters. 

Also, continuum, not binary. Wizards cast fireball, rogues might sneak attack, clerics can wallop and flamestrike, everyone can contribute to combat. Fighters are the best at it, though.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 30, 2012)

During the time between the writing of design goals and the delivery of the product, design goals are, by definition, unmet.  The purpose of providing them early is to inform those testing so that their criticism can be more constructive.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 30, 2012)

Points 2&3= Fantastical Realism FTW.

Points 4, like point 1, does make me worry a bit.  We're angling for a flatter math system, so I'm expecting "better" meaning no more than a +2 at the best of times(without buffs) when compared to other "fighting" classes.  But still, while the Fighter should be the best at fighting, I don't want that to come at the expense of other classes.  IE: Buff the fighter, don't nerf other classes to make the fighter feel good about sucking.

Again, Point 5 has the same problem as Point 1 and 4.  As long as they can make the fighter better without having to drive other fighting classes into the ground, great.  To some extent, there's still some concern, if a specialized, two-handed weapon fighter still gets high armor bonuses, while a Barbarian, who can only use two-handed weapons and no armor, well how does that work out?  Flatter math will mean dex bonuses aren't as impressive.  

In short: if a Fighter can specialize and be significantly stronger than a class who is pre-specialized, what's the point of those alternate classes?

Yay for point 6!  Now, it's important to note that they're equal in different ways, the way I read this post, casters will be "bursty" and fighters will be "slow and steady", but on the whole, be more powerful than they were before.  There'll probably be balance issues related to smaller encounters, but over the length of a boss-fight or fending off an invading army, both classes should get to shine to their fullest, in different ways.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Apr 30, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Fly and Protection from Arrows.  At that point ordinary 3.X orcs only hurt him on a crit.  He does this before rolling initiative.  At this point he can plink away with a crossbow if he wants.




You further my point (and I agree with you).  The Wizard has lots of ways to completely negate hundreds of orc attacks by the application of just a few spells.  The effectiveness of the wizard goes up drastically with the time he has to prepare for an encounter compared to a fighter.

I'm not sure how you make a fighter equal to a wizard on the battlefield (short of what was done with 4th edition).  That's why Mearls gets the big bucks


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Apr 30, 2012)

Mengu said:


> The article has a lot of words, but says very little to me. It sounds like a bunch of non-committal corporate mumbo jumbo, that's aimed to make people excited.
> 
> First of all, the play test being only pregenerated characters, is very disappointing to me. Honestly, they don't need "us" to test and see if the system works with a bunch of canned characters. They can do that themselves, and see what works, what doesn't. Closed betas are more than sufficient for this process. What they need the masses for, is stress testing. Where does the system break? What are emerging trends in tactics or builds, that need to be examined? Is everyone suddenly playing ranged characters and ignoring melee? Is everyone playing a dwarf? Why does no one even look at playing a halfling? These are the things that need to be nailed down in public play test with a large pool of players. So releasing pregenerated characters for play test is just advertisement and a way to keep people involved, but is not really all that encouraging of a step for system development.
> 
> ...




I don't think the playtest at this point is so much as to make sure the system works as it is to see if it achieves the goal of uniting the community. Testing to see whether or not edition warriors of any given stripe declare jihad on it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 30, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> People keep forgetting that there's a lot more to this game than attack and damage rolls.
> 
> You want the dragon slayed? Fighter's gonna do the heavy lifting, there.
> 
> ...




As long as it ends up as that and not:

You want the dragon slayed? Wizard's gonna blind it with glitterdust or lock it in a force cage to turn it into a mopping up excercise, thus doing all the heavy lifting.

You want the ancient text deciphered? Wizards. Oh yes.

You want the lock opened? Wizard?  Do you have a Knock scroll or spell?  Or should we let the thief have a go first?

You want the townsfolk quieted? Wizard.  Either use a couple of illusions to put on a dog and pony show, charm the lot of them, or scare them off.

The less combat the more the wizard's versatility puts him ahead of the mundane classes.


----------



## hemera (Apr 30, 2012)

Personally, I kind of hope for a sort of hybrid 3e/4e kind of fighter. Kind of like he is the best at fighting in the sense that he has the most options. Like combat feats for better combat maneuvers or straight up 4e style powers to supplement his basic attacks. That kind of versatility could put him ahead of the other basic fighting classes like the ranger and paladin. Just a thought.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 30, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> As long as it ends up as that




The article linked in the OP said that fighters are best at combat (as a design goal). If they succeed in that design goal, all this "OVERPOWERED WIZARD OHNOES!" paranoia will, at least for combat, be shown as unnecessary.

I, for one, generally trust them to meet their goals. I haven't seen WotC not meet goals, generally speaking, though I have seen them set the wrong goals. 



			
				Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> The less combat the more the wizard's versatility puts him ahead of the mundane classes.




Only under certain conditions which need not be true in the 5e development.


----------



## Szatany (Apr 30, 2012)

Lord Mhoram said:


> Some things I didn't see addressed.
> 
> The Three Pillars approach - Combat, exploration, roleplay.
> They have said that some characters will be better at one of those than the other, but all will have core competence in each.



As you said yourself: they have said that some *characters *will be better at combat, expl., or roleplay, not some *classes*.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 30, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The actual quote is...
> 
> _"Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting."_
> 
> ...




There's a very good chance that the fighter will be based on the 4E slayer, or at least the design goals that led to the 4E slayer. The 4E slayer gets a whole bunch of save and defense bonuses as it gains levels, which might show up again in the 5E fighter.


----------



## Szatany (Apr 30, 2012)

dopuble post, please delete


----------



## howandwhy99 (Apr 30, 2012)

How do we reach equality without uniformity? If every character is uniform mechanically, then they are copies of the same character for all intents and purposes. Might I suggest we do not balance PCs against each other, but rather against the world? How well are 1st level fighters going to be balanced against 10th level fighters in their party? Are characters only balanced when everyone is capable of doing everything everyone else can entirely? "Why can the dragon breathe fire and not me?"

Let's stop designing games on the precept that players' play is irrelevant to the results. If my plantation in Puerto Rico never makes any goods or money and yours does, why should I be shackled to increasing my overall resources just because you did? Or should the other player deliberately have theirs withheld?

Balancing a game is hard enough. Ensuring that all actions are rewarded as a group is an easy XP option, but even that isn't enforcing uniform treasure allocation. Are we to do this with every resource? Never accounting for actions individually removes the choice of cooperation in a cooperative game. (everything else sounded just fine btw)


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 30, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> How do we reach equality without uniformity?




By having different characters do different things that are equally important to resolving a situation.

My friend's barbarian does insane amounts of damage, but JUST does insane amounts of damage, but my invoker can blind, daze, and slow his target AND grant him a bonus to hit and damage AND give him a bonus to AC and temporary hit points... but does as much damage as a baby kobold with a stick.

In a social situation?

My friend's barbarian has a decent ability to intimidate, but couldn't guess that a politician was dishonest. My invoker is more likely to make someone laugh than cower, but is basically a lie detector. The barbarian asks the questions, the invoker tells him who answers truthfully, and then the barbarian scares the truth out of the liar.

Exploring?  Barbarian can jump onto a vine and climb to the top, invoker, who is multiclassed into druid for nature, and has great perception, can point to which vine will actually hold his weight.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 30, 2012)

the Jester said:


> As the barbarian is a base class that has been in a couple of Players Handbooks, we _know_ it's going to be a class. We've already been made aware of the "omniinclusion" goal.




We don't know that it's going to be a class, iirc what they said is that it will be part of the first PHB. It might as well be an example of using themes and backgrounds yo build your character, want to play as the old barbarian class grab a fighter with barbarian background and the berserker theme! Presto you are a barbarian berserker.

The point is that it makes no sense having a barbarian class, it would be the same as having a noble class or a city dweller class,I also think that being a berserker shouldn't be a class feature but a way to fight, having a berserker theme would allow for interesting builds such as breserker-Viking-cleric of Odin, or being a noble born fighter with a berserker curse (a flavorful way to add the theme), or the dwarf battlerager with the battlerager background and berserker theme.

It allways seemed odd to me that each and every barbarian can automatically rage, if I walk into a barbarian village does every one there got a level in barbarian? 

Warder


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 30, 2012)

"Barbarian" does not mean the same thing in D&D as it means in Ancient Rome.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 30, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> How do we reach equality without uniformity? If every character is uniform mechanically, then they are copies of the same character for all intents and purposes. Might I suggest we do not balance PCs against each other, but rather against the world?




That's exactly what balance in a primarily player vs. environment game means. Fighter vs. Wizard is really about what capabilities each has in interacting with the world and achieving their goals. The could have radically different abilities and approaches, but have similar overall power in the world.

The talk about who would win in a fight is just a way to compare their combat capabilities; two classes could be terribly mismatched in a fight between each other, yet still balanced in regards to the overall game.



> How well are 1st level fighters going to be balanced against 10th level fighters in their party?




Obviously, balance in a game with character progression is referring to balance between characters of similar amounts of progression.

Players don't choose their level.  They do choose their class.  Balance is about _options_ the players have available to them.



> Are characters only balanced when everyone is capable of doing everything everyone else can entirely? "Why can the dragon breathe fire and not me?"




Not at all. That's not what anyone who is advocating for balance is suggesting when referring to balance. It's simply a cartoonish straw-man.



> Let's stop designing games on the precept that players' play is irrelevant to the results. If my plantation in Puerto Rico never makes any goods or money and yours does, why should I be shackled to increasing my overall resources just because you did? Or should the other player deliberately have theirs withheld?




Who is suggesting that games should not have results tied to their "play"? Of course how well someone plays should impact results. That's the whole point of a "game".

Puerto Rico is balanced because each player has the same opportunities, and the same mechanics available to them.  Balance does not mean that the game must play out for everyone the same exact way.  What an absurd notion!

RPGs are trickier to balance, because we expect meaningfully different character archetypes available to each player. If, on the other hand, we were content with "Everyone plays a Wizard!" or "Everyone plays a Fighter!", the game would be a lot easier to balance.



> Balancing a game is hard enough. Ensuring that all actions are rewarded as a group is an easy XP option, but even that isn't enforcing uniform treasure allocation. Are we to do this with every resource? Never accounting for actions individually removes the choice of cooperation in a cooperative game. (everything else sounded just fine btw)




Who is suggestion no accountability for actions?

And again, balance is not about what the players decide to do in-character.  It's about what each of them _can_ do, according to the mechanics of the game.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Apr 30, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> We don't know that it's going to be a class, iirc what they said is that it will be part of the first PHB. It might as well be an example of using themes and backgrounds yo build your character, want to play as the old barbarian class grab a fighter with barbarian background and the berserker theme! Presto you are a barbarian berserker.
> 
> The point is that it makes no sense having a barbarian class, it would be the same as having a noble class or a city dweller class,I also think that being a berserker shouldn't be a class feature but a way to fight, having a berserker theme would allow for interesting builds such as breserker-Viking-cleric of Odin, or being a noble born fighter with a berserker curse (a flavorful way to add the theme), or the dwarf battlerager with the battlerager background and berserker theme.
> 
> It allways seemed odd to me that each and every barbarian can automatically rage, if I walk into a barbarian village does every one there got a level in barbarian?




I totally agree, Barbarian would be a great Background, then you could have Barbaric parties (Horde campaign etc); same for Noble.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 30, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> "Barbarian" does not mean the same thing in D&D as it means in Ancient Rome.




I wouldn't know, ancient Rome was a bit before my time 

Warder


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 30, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> I wouldn't know, ancient Rome was a bit before my time
> 
> Warder




Actually the internet says it's from Ancient Greece... either way, different word.

Saying "A village of barbarians" is like saying "A village of warlocks" or "A village of paladins."


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> And save or die?  I notice you left that out.  His comment does not allow for save or die does it?




I left it out because we've already had blogs from WotC talking about Save or Die effects, and questioning whether they might exist, how they might work, what they might do, and when they might get used.  And those points had nothing to do with the design of the Fighter and the desire to make sure he can't "get killed" by the wizard.

If the blog was any indication, if SoD doesn't show up in the game it's because it was determined to not be a good game concept, not because they need to "protect" the precious fighter.


----------



## Blackwarder (Apr 30, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Actually the internet says it's from Ancient Greece... either way, different word.
> 
> Saying "A village of barbarians" is like saying "A village of warlocks" or "A village of paladins."




I know, I was kidding... I guess pulling my special kidding face: wasn't enough though.

But back on subject, back in the day, there wasn't a barbarian class in D&D, there was a breserker class and I have no idea why they choose to rename it barbarian because being a breserker and being a barbarian are two different things IMO.

Warder


----------



## dkyle (Apr 30, 2012)

Blackwarder said:


> I know, I was kidding... I guess pulling my special kidding face: wasn't enough though.
> 
> But back on subject, back in the day, there wasn't a barbarian class in D&D, there was a breserker class and I have no idea why they choose to rename it barbarian because being a breserker and being a barbarian are two different things IMO.
> 
> Warder




Probably so there was something easy to point to when someone wanted to play Conan.  Even though Conan actually acts almost nothing like a D&D Barbarian...


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 30, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I left it out because we've already had blogs from WotC talking about Save or Die effects, and questioning whether they might exist, how they might work, what they might do, and when they might get used.  And those points had nothing to do with the design of the Fighter and the desire to make sure he can't "get killed" by the wizard.
> 
> If the blog was any indication, if SoD doesn't show up in the game it's because it was determined to not be a good game concept, not because they need to "protect" the precious fighter.




More strawman arguments.  

Had they an article that said "The wizard can stand toe to to with the fighter, and cast spells through every attack the fighter can lay onto him", I'd have the same reaction.

No class should be able to stand in front of the wizard and "absorb the damage of, and throw offthe effects of" an entire wizard's spell arsenal for the day, shrug and then move on to killing the wizard.

No class should be able to stand in front of a fighter and let him beat on them  for 15 rounds and then just shrug and move on.

No class should be able to absorb round after round of sneak attack/backstab and then just wink and take a nap.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 30, 2012)

Mage of Spellford said:


> I enjoy the trope (typical of many s&s novels) of the fighter shrugging off the wizard's spells and I heartily agree that the imbalance in 3/3.5e needs to be adjusted.



Which s&s novel would that be? Because when discussing save or die/save or lose I always think of the Conan story "The Scarlet Citadel" where Conan is killing hundreds of men on a battlefield, until the sorcerer Tsotha-lanti shows up and pricks him on the cheek, paralyzing him and taking him prisoner.

As I recall the sorcerer has a line like "Don't you know my magic is mightier than any sword?"


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> The fighter being able to absorb everything the wizard can throw at him, being THAT much better than everyone else at fighting, is not ok.



So you'd prefer that the _Wizard_ get to be THAT much better than everyone else?  'Cause that's what it sounds like you want in this statement:



Janaxstrus said:


> No class should be able to stand there leaning on their weapon while a  20th level wizard lines him up for his entire spell lineup and then  shrug and kill him.






hemera said:


> Personally, I kind of hope for a sort of hybrid 3e/4e kind of fighter.



I'd rather see a sort of hybrid 1e/4e kind of Fighter...


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> It says he can take every spell a wizard can throw at him, and keep fighting.  Not that he can win 50% of the time, or that he has to pin the wizard down or lose.  It specifically said ALL of the wizards spells, and continue to fight.




Edit:  
SORRY:  failed to read rest of thread before replying to you....I understand better what you are saying now.


---------------------------------------------------------
So its your opinion that he meant a 1st level fighter could shrug off all the spells from a 20th level necromancer one on one and continue to fight?

IMO, I don't think they mean it that way...but everyone sees things differently...


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Apr 30, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> It sounds a little like 5E will lean toward Mythic Fantasy as a playstyle.
> 
> While I have played games in the past of that style and have also highly enjoyed them, I'm feeling as though that's not really what I'm looking for.  4th Edition does that already.  I'm a bit unsure if the Durango's design team means the same thing by 'modularity' as what I wanted them to mean.




This right here! I don't want 4th edition's Mythic fantasy. I didn't like it then and I'm not going to like it in the future. 

That should be one of many playstyles that are available, not the default.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Apr 30, 2012)

Also sounds to me like they may be having separate building mechanics for creatures.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 30, 2012)

ArmoredSaint said:


> So you'd prefer that the Wizard get to be THAT much better than everyone else?  'Cause that's what it sounds like you want in this statement:




Not even a little.  For me, I'd be happy with a fighter usually winning
However. the fighter stands there and let's the wizard empty both barrels (so to speak)?  The wizard should win every time.

It doesn't have to be either the fighter wins every time OR the wizard wins everytime.  The fighter not being the spell caddy is great, but not at the expense of making him unkillable vs a wizard.

There is a happy medium


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Apr 30, 2012)

This is probably why we will just stick with Pathfinder. Our Wizards and Fighters have no problems and both have fun together.


----------



## SageMinerve (Apr 30, 2012)

Some people keep failing their panic saving throws...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 30, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> No class should be able to stand in front of the wizard and "absorb the damage of, and throw offthe effects of" an entire wizard's spell arsenal for the day, shrug and then move on to killing the wizard.




Well, there's your problem.  The statement just said that the fighter could keep fighting... nowhere in there did it say he'd proceed to lay the beatdown on the wizard and kill him.  "Continue fighting" does not equal "Kill the wizard".

You just seem to want to take what was said and expand it out to some illogical extreme, inferring things that aren't actually there unless you have some masochistic desire to think the worst.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 30, 2012)

To me it doesn't sound like fighter always beats a wizard.

It sounds like what they are saying is that if a wizard unloads his normal selection of prepared spells on a fighter, it wont kill the fighter. Meaning that if a wizard is stacked up with ½ combat spells, and ½ noncombat spells, he can't blow out all the fighters HP without leaving himself open for a easy fighter win.

Or basically if the wizard unloads his best slots for offense, the fighter will still survive and the wizard will have no defense. If the wizard goes mostly defense, he wont make a dent into the fighter's health and STILL be most like kill but it will take longer. But if the wizard spends every spell slot on offensive and defensive combat spell, he has a chance to win.... but now he has no exploration or social spells available. 

Now if they could only do that.


----------



## Gentlegamer (May 1, 2012)

am181d said:


> Are you looking for an AC that's higher than a rogue of the same level?
> 
> One of the reasons I always wish that D&D separated out armor from hard-to-hittedness is that I really want the rogue to be harder to hit and the fighter to be better at resisting damage. As is, it's really hard to maintain that flavor because between the AC and the hit points, it's all very murky as to what's happening.



Why should a rogue be better at _anything _to do with fighting than the fighting-man?


----------



## Gentlegamer (May 1, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> I agree with most of what you're saying, it's very much the 1e approach. Do you think all spells should be risky to cast, or just a few? Iirc most 1e spells didn't have any drawbacks - magic missile for example. And should this also apply to divine spellcasting? There could be something akin to potion miscibility/wand of wonder/deck of many things randomness with potentially very negative consequences whenever any spell is cast. Or perhaps that would slow the game down too much.



Generally, the more powerful and supernatural the effect, the more potential danger for the spell-caster.


> I like the idea of spells being more disruptable in combat. Defensive casting  or taking a five foot step backwards was too easy in 3e, imo. Maybe if all casting was a full round action.



'Disruptable' spells was part of the balance of magic in AD&D. I heartily endorse a return to this. Wizards need to understand the hazards of venturing too close to a melee and keep followers/henchmen/thralls in their employ to keep foes at bay.


----------



## Mercule (May 1, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> Why should a rogue be better at _anything _to do with fighting than the fighting-man?



The rogue should be the best at ending combat before the other guy knows it's happening. That's it's "balance" in combat.

Even the whirling, flipping, misdirecting, acrobatic swashbuckler should be a multiclass, if they expect to be able to actually stay in combat without an effective meat shield.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 1, 2012)

There's a lot of people in this thread who seem to keep making the mistake of assuming combat is the only balance metric.

Maybe a fighter could win in a straight-up fight with a wizard. This wouldn't be anything particularly new to 5e. Pathfinder, 2e, and 1e wizards also loose in a straight up fight with a fighter (ability to take damage and disrupt spells FTW). About the only way a wizard wins in that scenario is by using some sort of Save-Or-Die effect and getting lucky on the dice (or twinking their spell DC). If they win initiative, and the fighter fails the save, then maybe they come out ahead. If not, they're toast. 

The way a wizard beats a fighter isn't in combat. It's in doing things like avoiding combat to begin with (things like Charm or Teleport aren't there to win battles, they're there to prevent them). In a lot of ways, if a wizard gets into a normal fight alone, they've already failed. 

That's possible to balance because combat isn't the only measure of character power. I'm not sure how 5e is gonna do it, but a wizard in my mind is "spike potential." That is, a few limited times per day, the wizard is CRAZY effective. The wizard is your panic button. They are your nova. They are your big boom effect that might save the day. Their spells are going to save your bacon. But they can only do it a few times each day, and then they're spent. Maybe Fireball does end an encounter quickly. But the next encounter won't go so quickly. The wizard has used their big boom effect, and there's nothing left of that power. 

Fighters in this mode are MasterCard: useful everywhere. Wizards might be more like your specific store credit card: more useful than MasterCard, but only under limited, rare circumstances. 

That's not the only way you can do it, that's just the way that matches my expectation of D&D magic the best.


----------



## Mercule (May 1, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> This right here! I don't want 4th edition's Mythic fantasy. I didn't like it then and I'm not going to like it in the future.
> 
> That should be one of many playstyles that are available, not the default.



Agreed. This is one of the areas where I think tiers were actually a good idea. Swords and Sorcery (Conan) happens in the Heroic tier. Epic/high fantasy (Tolkien) happens in the Paragon tier. Mythic fantasy (Beowulf) happens in the Epic tier. 

It's not an exact science, and I don't think you'll find clean transitions. It's a good way to have a rule of thumb, though. I know that I'm unlikely to enjoy a mythic game, unless it's the final stages of an apocalyptic campaign that started at 1st level (i.e. the frosting on a couple years of play). I want to stay in the S&S to lower high fantasy range. I don't have any issue with other groups who want to play Hercules, but I want to be able to separate the play parameters reasonably easily.

I think 4e may have started the creep towards mythic a bit early, but that doesn't invalidate the tier concept.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 1, 2012)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Agreed. This is one of the areas where I think tiers were actually a good idea. Swords and Sorcery (Conan) happens in the Heroic tier. Epic/high fantasy (Tolkien) happens in the Paragon tier. Mythic fantasy (Beowulf) happens in the Epic tier.




Tiers-as-Treasure strikes again!


----------



## Lord Mhoram (May 1, 2012)

Szatany said:


> As you said yourself: they have said that some *characters *will be better at combat, expl., or roleplay, not some *classes*.




I read it as classes by design as well. *shrug*


----------



## Sunseeker (May 1, 2012)

Gentlegamer said:


> Why should a rogue be better at _anything _to do with fighting than the fighting-man?




Why should we be allowed to customize our characters?  Because there are multiple interpretations, ideas and concepts about what a class should do.


----------



## mlund (May 1, 2012)

These are all good signs.

Being the best at fighting means you are, given the circumstance of a fight where two sides are trying to beat each other up, the fighter is the best aggregate combination of dishing out and taking a beating. What that translates to in terms of damage, damage resistance, and battlefield control is anyone's guess (and will probably vary fighter-to-fighter).

The one mechanical hurdle I'm hoping they design around are the save-or-suck scenarios pointed at fighters. A fighter who just ignores all non-HP attacks is just as negative an experience as a fighter who is constantly taken out of the fight by Enchantment effects. If the fighter has a simple mechanic for burning HP to "fight through" negative effects I'd be very pleased. Heck, if everyone had that option but the fighter was just better at it by virtue of his massive reserves of Hit Points that would be even better!

I also don't want the fighter producing a massive series of attack rolls ever round to keep up with the wizard. I'd like a high-level fighter to have a huge aura of beat-down that's constantly on. Enter an Epic-level fighter's threat radius (and he cuts a rather wide swath, I must say) and just eat damage to the face, no rolls necessary. Chafe swarms in armies should die whenever an epic fighter takes a *move action* through their space - seriously. He's just a carnival of carnage to his enemies.

As to the best jouster, swordsman, and archer being fighters - Mearls didn't say anything about them being the *same* fighter. The class is versatile, and fighters should generally be excellent with all weapons of war. There's nothing there saying a fighter can't become a specialist with a particular weapon. That's actually a long-standing tradition. 

- Marty Lund


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 1, 2012)

I am very much against fighter specialization. Rather than repeat myself, I'm just going to quote myself:

"
I understand that someone might want to "be good with swords," but that   necessarily means they're not as good with other weapons. Thus, any  weapon you pick up that isn't a sword is basically useless.

Why not just say, Fighters can use swords, axes, spears, maces, and  bows, and  then the player can just use whichever they want. So if you  want to use a  sword, just use a sword (rather than spending character  resources on it  at the expense of other weapon types).
...
If a fighter needs to specialize to "keep up," all that means is that  he's only useful with whatever he specialized in, and not useful with  anything else. Specialization is not a bonus, it's a punishment.
"

Now, with news of combat maneuvers, it's interesting to see how they'll go with weapon specialization. It could be that every other level, you get a combat maneuver, and many of them only work with certain kinds of weapons. I think that would be fine; if you use a sword all the time you can do tricky stuff with swords, but you can still pick up a bow and be good at shooting.


----------



## kave99 (May 1, 2012)

underfoot007ct said:


> I believe this is the First public playtest WOTC has done, how are "and no one I sure how long it will run or what exactly is in the PT. How is WOTC ..."So, like before, they're going to let us actually have the rules when it's too late to have input on them?" How many WOTC PTs have you participated in so far ?
> 
> Maybe we can stop BASHING the playtest until you have it, & have played it for a week or Two. Rally, the sky is NOT falling.




They did for 4th in much the same way though it was far closer (if I recall correctly) to the release date. At the time many long time (eg old guys) players where excluded ( at lest that's the way it appeared) from the closed play tests. As I recall we did not get a vary good feel for the game from it though it did spark a lot of intreging conversations.


----------



## Oni (May 1, 2012)

If a wizard, a limited resource class, throws everything they have at a fighter and the fighter can consistently shrug it off the bulk of the time then that is very poor design indeed.


----------



## frankthedm (May 1, 2012)

Oni said:


> If a wizard, a limited resource class, throws everything they have at a fighter and the fighter can consistently shrug it off the bulk of the time then that is very poor design indeed.



I'd say it is poor design for the wizard to be ABLE to throw _everything_ at one target in one single combat. If a ruleset lets a character go nova, that is a no go for me.


----------



## Oni (May 1, 2012)

frankthedm said:


> I'd say it is poor design for the wizard to be ABLE to throw _everything_ at one target in one single combat. If a ruleset lets a character go nova, that is a no go for me.




If you want to take is so literally I would be forced to agree, but I say everything based on the language used in the blog post.  



> Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting.




Really I take that to mean that to mean the best of the best from their small pool of higher level spells that they could get off in a few round combat.  Traditionally wizards are a nova class, since the power of their daily allotment of resources varies, and if they blow all their best spells in one combat then they have essentially gone nova, they've burned bright at the expense of later, and that is fine by me, actually I would say it's an essential part of the experience.  If going nova somehow means blowing the action economy out of the water I'm not so okay with that.


----------



## WarlockLord (May 1, 2012)

I don't see this actually working.  Note their fighter did not get good saves, can't fly under his own power (oh, so necessary), and, as I said earlier, all of the mythical fighter things in the article can be done by a mid-level wizard.

Kill 400 mooks?  Spam fireball.  Not even impressive by D&D standards.

Rip off a monster's arm?  Disintegrate.  Level 11.

Kill a dragon in one hit? SoD OR Shivering Touch (level 5).

Not to mention the fighter's entire "take melee damage, hit things" schtick is entirely invalidated by throwing away expendable summons.

And none of this counters the teleporting flying demon wizard.

PS: No, Pathfinder fighters cannot beat wizards.  Wizard spell DCs went up (as every race gets mental ability bonuses), they got more spells a day due to PF specialization mechanics,  stupid class features like "I go first" (diviner) or "bigger army of skeletons" (necromancer) and they still have plenty of "I win" like charm, dominate, magic jar, fly, gate, planar binding, suffocate, web, hideous laughter,plane shift...do I need to continue?  Meanwhile, Pathfinder nerfed power attack.  Mr. Mearls, please do not emulate Pathfinder.


----------



## am181d (May 1, 2012)

WarlockLord said:


> And none of this counters the teleporting flying demon wizard.




Eh. My fighter and his trusty small room can take your teleporting flying demon wizard any day of the week.


----------



## Grimmjow (May 1, 2012)

i love the idea of the fighter gaining a lot of versatility


----------



## WheresMyD20 (May 1, 2012)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The myths and legends where the guy with the sword is the star of the show, often killing the guy in robes with glowing hands?




Please provide examples.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (May 1, 2012)

Quickleaf said:


> What about this is ambiguous exactly?




The quote from Mearls refers to fighter/wizard balance, not that the fighter simply exists in legend.


----------



## Quickleaf (May 1, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> The quote from Mearls refers to fighter/wizard balance, not that the fighter simply exists in legend.



Ah I see, you're looking for examples where fighters beat up wizards or otherwise prove themselves an equal or better challenge to a wizard.

My first thought is the Shannara series by Terry Brooks...There the reality-warping magic of the wishsong can prevent someone from reaching the wizard/Druid, but once they break thru the wishsong, magic is of little avail. That's why Allanon and Walker Boh were both trained in fighting with weapons. Most wizards/Druids in his books rely on fighters to protect them, and the really powerful wizards/Druids learn how to fight themselves.


----------



## Daztur (May 1, 2012)

I don't think that comments about 5ed having fighters like the ones in myth and legend is anything to worry about, high level fighters of every edition have been able to do things that trump what normal people can do by wide wide wide margins. Nothing new here.


----------



## GM Dave (May 1, 2012)

WarlockLord said:


> And none of this counters the teleporting flying demon wizard.
> 
> PS: No, Pathfinder fighters cannot beat wizards.  Wizard spell DCs went up (as every race gets mental ability bonuses), they got more spells a day due to PF specialization mechanics,  stupid class features like "I go first" (diviner) or "bigger army of skeletons" (necromancer) and they still have plenty of "I win" like charm, dominate, magic jar, fly, gate, planar binding, suffocate, web, hideous laughter,plane shift...do I need to continue?  Meanwhile, Pathfinder nerfed power attack.  Mr. Mearls, please do not emulate Pathfinder.




Straight up?

No, a high level fighter won't beat a high level wizard that is prepared.

Fighter though have been known to borrow power in the form of magical items that allow them to boots fly, broaches to see invisibile, or those cursed teleporting helms.

Nothing ruins a wizards flying demon presence like a fighter that pops up behind then saying, "I can see you".

I've run high level fighters, paladins, and rangers (in 3.5 and PF).  I've put out damage in charges and full round attacks that is in the hundreds of damage (no pun-pun but good adds to abilities).  If I can reach you and touch you with my weapons then you will feel pain.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 1, 2012)

am181d said:


> Eh. My fighter and his trusty small room can take your teleporting flying demon wizard any day of the week.




Such a pity he's treed himself.  He needs _Dimensional Anchor_ or he can only drive the demon off.  And if the demon knows where the fighter is there are so many ways to win.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 1, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> It's when you enter the endgame (give or take a level depending on the class).<snippage>




Got it. 




Neonchameleon said:


> Cap the levels for the lower power options?  Or just say you can't do it all with one system.  I don't mind Arthur and Merlin.  What I mind is Arthur and Dr. Strange.  Merlin was a Bard and Gandalf only cast like a 4th level druid according to Dragon.




I think with modules there's room for all of that within D&D. Especially with higher levels that few games reach, there's just no need for us to demand that the game play a certain way.


----------



## Tsuga C (May 1, 2012)

*High-Level Fighter Cheesefest*

Sorry, Mikey, but swinging a sword or an axe should NOT be equivalent to an upper level spell.  Here we go again seeking "balance" where it cannot exist without straining our credulity to the breaking point.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 1, 2012)

gweinel said:


> Am I the only one that thinks that these are the same design goals with 4e fighter?



(1) is very un-4e.


----------



## keterys (May 1, 2012)

In terms of fiction, magic is usually unreliable and slow, so it's not hard to make magic less effective.

If you can't fireball until the 3rd round, or meteor swarm until the 9th, well, that's plenty of time for the fighter to get his licks in... so it's a question of what preparations you've done in advance and the amazing things you can do with ritual magic outside of combat. I could live with that.


----------



## Tovec (May 1, 2012)

keterys said:


> In terms of fiction, magic is usually unreliable and slow, so it's not hard to make magic less effective.
> 
> If you can't fireball until the 3rd round, or meteor swarm until the 9th, well, that's plenty of time for the fighter to get his licks in... so it's a question of what preparations you've done in advance and the amazing things you can do with ritual magic outside of combat. I could live with that.




There isn't a problem with this per se. The problem is when you go from the previous editions to a model that requires you to spend 3 rounds casting a 3rd level spell. People will rebel. I'm not saying the spell system wouldn't look good or would be inelegant but unfortunately there is no going back.
I toyed around with a similar idea at one time but it fell apart quite quickly when I realized the people playing with the new rule are the ones who would have played it before and wouldn't like the change.


----------



## keterys (May 1, 2012)

Oh, sure - it's more in response to someone thinking it's impossible to have mundane compare to magical.

Also - I don't mean "you spend 9 rounds casting meteor swarm" but "you can't cast meteor swarm until the 9th round" - so you're gathering energy during the encounter while casting other spells, unless disrupted / stopped, but you lead in with a magic missile, then a scorching ray, then a fireball... and almost instantly you've solved the big nova and the fighter not getting a chance to act before the wizard solves the fight problems.

Or maybe you can cast 1 spell, but then you're drained and can only do minor magic for a time. Like let's say you've got 1st - 9th level spells, and 9 "mana" that you can use to cast your memorized spells. They go away when you cast them, but you can't offload them all at once. So, you want to meteor swarm in round 1... and you're out of magic for the rest of the fight. Or maybe you get 1 back per round, so you can actually cast fireball 4 rounds in a row til you run out and draw back on magic missiles.

Whatever, there's room to work with, and still meet their other goals.


----------



## GM Dave (May 2, 2012)

I was thinking on the Barbarian Class the other day.

1>  If the primitive schtick is going to become a background then that takes a chunk out of the Barbarian class.

2>  If the Fighter is the Best Fighter with all weapons then the Barbarian can not be a specialist type of fighter.

3>  If the Fighter is the Toughest then the Barbarian can not be the juggernaut that shrugs off wounds that would leave other opponents dead (personally, I think the fighter should leave this schtick for the Barbarian as it has always been the Barbarian's thing to have d12 hit points and gain things like Damage Reduction because they gave up heavy armour).

4>  This leaves the Barbarian with Raging and Charging.  This is more of a Berserker than a Barbarian (as other posters have noted and does harken back to the roots of DnD).  Charging is a loaded gift to the Barbarian as it takes a possible schtick away from the Paladin to represent how they are good on mounts and off of mounts at the fore front of a battle.

Still, Raging while possible to define a class (4e built many attacks with potential follow up attacks triggered by things like criticals and a spike damage mechanic when the Barbarian was 'in a rage').  It seems to be a bit of a thin thing.

5>  This led me to think back to 3e and the Power Attack feat.  As a feat it was too dominant.  It was almost a requirement in any melee feat progression to bump up your damage to keep pace with casters (there are some melee progression feat progressions without it but those are based on 'tricks' and specific sets of feat choices).  4e kept the term Power Attack but it was radically reduced in value.

I think this trade of damage for chance to hit would fit best the Barbarian/Berserker mindset.  It gives them a second schtik to build the class on as a constant bonus that they can choose to employ.

The fighter is the best in melee but the Barbarian/Berserker is the crazy warrior that is 'all in' with attacks.


----------



## am181d (May 2, 2012)

keterys said:


> Also - I don't mean "you spend 9 rounds casting meteor swarm" but "you can't cast meteor swarm until the 9th round" - so you're gathering energy during the encounter while casting other spells, unless disrupted / stopped, but you lead in with a magic missile, then a scorching ray, then a fireball... and almost instantly you've solved the big nova and the fighter not getting a chance to act before the wizard solves the fight problems.




That's a really cool mechanic. I can see that being fun for players ("You thought that spell was bad-ass? Well see what I've got for you THIS round!") and also for villains ("We REALLY need to kill Vecna this turn, or he's going to start Meteor Swarming us!"). The only downside is it requires you to keep track of how many turns into combat you are. Not difficult (just set out a die), but it's one more thing to manage.

EDITED TO ADD: The other thing it does is it makes it more likely that a combat will end after each successive round, kind of like escalating blinds in poker.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2012)

Ratskinner said:


> The problem is that it seems like all the things you can do to make the Fighter more interesting or better at combat (without just tacking on massive bonuses) approach combat from the "Combat as Sport" direction and plenty of spells have effects that seem to come from the "Combat as War" direction.



And the point of that is what?  That one of those directions is invalid and must not be allowed?



> This, in particular was the problem with 3.x, IMHO.



There were a lot of problematic or broken spells in 3.x, if that's what you're getting at.  And casters did get a lot of spells and access to cheap low-level spells in wands and scrolls, undermining the idea that they were balanced by being a limited resource.  Am I getting warm at all?  



> (I haven't played enough 4e to comment on mid or high level play there, other than plenty of people complaining about "status" effects...)



In 4e, all classes can impose some status effects, controllers, like the wizard, have a much higher proportion of spells the inflict, FWIW.


----------



## Greg K (May 2, 2012)

GM Dave said:


> 4>  This leaves the Barbarian with Raging and Charging.  This is more of a Berserker than a Barbarian (as other posters have noted and does harken back to the roots of DnD).




Other than the bererker NPC class from Dragon which could also shapechange, does it harken back to the roots of DND?  The 1e Barbarian could not rage. In 2e, I don't recall the Barbarian from the Complete Barbarian's Handbook raging and the berserkere in the Complete Fighter's Handbook was only one of several "barbarian" kits.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 2, 2012)

Greg K said:


> Other than the bererker NPC class from Dragom which could also shapechange, does it harken back to the roots of DND?  The 1e Barbarian could not rage. In 2e, I don't recall the Barbarian from the Complete Barbarian's Handbook raging and the berserkere in the Complete Fighter's Handbook was only one of several "barbarian" kits.




There was also a Berserker class in the 2nd Ed Vikings Historical Reference book (green, softcover), right?

For the record I would prefer the Barbarian to be a Background (cultural status), then you could have a barbaric party.


----------



## Essenti (May 2, 2012)

am181d said:


> That's a really cool mechanic. I can see that being fun for players ("You thought that spell was bad-ass? Well see what I've got for you THIS round!") and also for villains ("We REALLY need to kill Vecna this turn, or he's going to start Meteor Swarming us!"). The only downside is it requires you to keep track of how many turns into combat you are. Not difficult (just set out a die), but it's one more thing to manage.
> 
> EDITED TO ADD: The other thing it does is it makes it more likely that a combat will end after each successive round, kind of like escalating blinds in poker.




This is getting a little off topic, but it's still indirectly related to fighter power level...

Maybe if they add casting times back into the killer spells... A wizard devotes a minor or move action to cast fireball for which takes say, three rounds.  They can spend their standard action to throw a dagger, an at-will fire lance, or even a magic missile. Maybe blowing an action point will shave off a round. I could see this working, but like someone else mentioned, some folks won't like the wait times.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 2, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> And the point of that is what?  That one of those directions is invalid and must not be allowed?




No, not at all. But, if you pick a direction, _both _classes should follow it. Combat as War basically trumps Combat as Sport. 4e seems to have solved the LFQW problem by turning fighters and wizards (everybody, really) into "Combat as Sport" machines. That's okay, objectively, but a lot folks subjectively felt that was a pronounced deviation from previous D&D. So much so that the next edition is striving to reunite the player base. 

Can both classes be made interesting, flavorful, and be "Combat as War" oriented? I dunno, but I think the abstract nature of D&D's combat system makes it harder to hit all three with the Fighter.  



Tony Vargas said:


> There were a lot of problematic or broken spells in 3.x, if that's what you're getting at.  And casters did get a lot of spells and access to cheap low-level spells in wands and scrolls, undermining the idea that they were balanced by being a limited resource.  Am I getting warm at all?




Partially yes, 3e also did away with a lot of the risk inherent in magic in previous editions. Personally, I never experienced the problems a lot of people cite with Wands of CLW, etc. I dunno, my players just never got into it. ::shrug:: What I _did _experience, and came to mourn, was the loss of caution. Spells became "all good". To me, that became a big issue with 3e, although not one I recognized right away.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2012)

Essenti said:


> times back into the killer spells... A wizard devotes a minor or move action to cast fireball for which takes say, three rounds.  They can spend their standard action to throw a dagger, an at-will fire lance, or even a magic missile. Maybe blowing an action point will shave off a round. I could see this working, but like someone else mentioned, some folks won't like the wait times.



'Warm ups' have been suggested as an alternative to dailies on the WotC boards, too.   So has random factors, like crits or beating a DC by a threshold.  While those an many other systems might theoretically deliver their peak power, on average, as often as a player-controlled daily (as always, depending on the 'length' of the day), they still don't measure up to the 'plot power' of the daily.  

Casting times are classic D&D though, and today's rounds are AD&Ds segments.  A third level spell used to take 3 segments (generally), that's the same 18 seconds as 3 rounds today.  I doubt wizard fans would see it that way, though.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2012)

Ratskinner said:


> No, not at all. But, if you pick a direction, _both _classes should follow it.



 I think part of the point of 5e is not to pick a direction, but to support many diverse styles.


> Combat as War basically trumps Combat as Sport.



How so?  

I remember the combat as war/sport thread, and I didn't find the implied superiority of one over the other a very compelling idea.  



> 4e seems to have solved the LFQW problem by turning fighters and wizards (everybody, really) into "Combat as Sport" machines.



I'm sorry, but how are all 4e characters 'machines?'  I've had a good time RPing a number of character under the system, and never felt I was running a robot.  What exactly are you driving at?



> That's okay, objectively, but a lot folks subjectively felt that was a pronounced deviation from previous D&D. So much so that the next edition is striving to reunite the player base.



I'm not sure how that applies here, though.  The fighter described my Mr. Mearls is very much the classic AD&D fighter.  A number of numerical 'Bests' in basic combat ability, no out-of-combat ability even alluded to.  Even the more over the top stuff is actually pretty AD&D.  Mowing through armies?  An AD&D fighter could mow through less than 1 HD enemies, making 1 attack per round /per level/.  Standing up to a barrage of spells at high level?  Very AD&D: high-level fighters had phenomenal saves across the board.  About the only change is that it'll supposedly be less dependent on items.  That could just be a side effect of the "compressed math" of 5e - perhaps magic weapons and the like will only come in +1, for instance.  Missing out on a +1 because you're mowing through an army with a haunch of moose* instead of a +1 greataxe is not a huge deal.




> Can both classes be made interesting, flavorful, and be "Combat as War" oriented? I dunno, but I think the abstract nature of D&D's combat system makes it harder to hit all three with the Fighter.



Well, if you can't hit interesting, flavorful, balanced, /and/ "Combat as War," maybe that says something about "Combat as War" as a litmus test for a game.  

Why is it only a problem for the Fighter, though?  The fighter is a straightforward enough archetype, and in fiction and legend often does some very remarkable things.  Magic is a lot less consistent in genre, most often being very narrative in nature - wizards provide exposition, plot-enablement, and the occasional deus ex machina; evil sorcerers provide fearsome foes that are overcome in profoundly plot-driven narrative ways - all tropes very much at odds with CaW.



* rep to the first one who gets this obscure old-school reference.


----------



## Daztur (May 2, 2012)

Well one of the things that 4ed does to balance wizards is strip out most of their combat as war-friendly abilities (which were pretty out of control in 3.5ed, especially since many of the limitations such as teleport error and system shock rolls for polymorphing had been stripped out). How to put them back in without upsetting game balance is a big challenge but hopefully 5ed will try to tackle it. What they seem to be doing (which may or may not be the best way), is using the three pillars and having the fighters be better at combat (basically CaS) and the wizard be better at exploration (roughly CaW).

Perhaps not specifically how I would've done it, but I won't be annoyed if that's how 5ed does it.

I'd love 5ed fighters to have out of combat awesome but as long as they're not clumsy (can get acrobatic skills and whatnot and don't have to eat big armor check penalties) and are durable (especially good saves), I'll happily play one.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2012)

Daztur said:


> Well one of the things that 4ed does to balance wizards is strip out most of their combat as war-friendly abilities (which were pretty out of control in 3.5ed, especially since many of the limitations such as teleport error and system shock rolls for polymorphing had been stripped out).



 Sounds like "Combat as War friendly" = "broken."  



> How to put them back in without upsetting game balance is a big challenge but hopefully 5ed will try to tackle it.



Because there's some slim chance they might succeed, or because you just want broken spells back?  Seriously, balance is great for a game, but not everyone approaches D&D as a game.  Do you think there might be a reasonable way to add back "desirable brokenness?"  For instance, as an optional module?



> What they seem to be doing (which may or may not be the best way), is using the three pillars and having the fighters be better at combat and the wizard be better at exploration.



The Pillars are a handy reference.  Yes, I think it's clear from the fighter design goals that any balance 5e may retain is going to be across all Pillars rather than within each.  Though the Fighter won't be /better/ at combat, but 'best.'  Keep in mind that in marketing speak, the claim of best means "just as good as everyone else" or "nothing else is better."  Even if Mr. Mearls wasn't being quite that disingenuous, "best" can be best by a very small margin.  

Combat can probably be presumed, by D&D tradition, to be a very substantial part of the game.  Thus, "best" at combat can be balanced by "worthless" in the other two pillars, while "best" in exploration can be balanced by "slightly limited in combat."  

Again, all very AD&D.


----------



## SkidAce (May 2, 2012)

Combat as War and Combat as Sport seems to be referencing the Strategic and Tactical levels of combat...is this how ya'll are using them?


----------



## Aenghus (May 2, 2012)

"Combat as sport" is friendly to encounter-based games, and much easier to balance. "Combat as war" is about victory by any means necessary, and is not encounter-friendly as the whole point is to allow the players to shortcut, mangle, spindle and mutilate encounters, or simply avoid them, which is anticlimatic and missing the point in some styles of play.

One problem I have with "combat as war" games is that they are to a great extent about finding the weakest points in the setting and rules and exploiting it to the maximum, which I call "breaking the box". It's very difficult to design for, as many "CaW" tactics are emergent and not envisaged by the designers at all. The style of game that emerges, because it hasn't been designed as such, can quite possibly not be at all fun for a significant section of the player base e.g. scry and fry.

Another is that games where "combat as war" is being used and the bad guys take the gloves off can result in an unfun scorched earth world, where the PCs are likely to lose without a hope, and ultimately can't win due to enemy WMDs.

Limits and or social contracts are needed to to take tactics off the table for all sides which while effective on paper, just aren't acceptable to some or all of the people in the group.

To those who say they don't have any limits in their game, they don't have their BBEGs teleport in high level assassins to kill the party at 1st level in their sleep, do they?  That's a potential world setup, though horrible for actual games involving people.


----------



## mcintma (May 2, 2012)

I can see 2 outcomes from what I've read from fighter/wizard design. I base this on [paraphrasing] "fighter will be equal and can shrug off wizard spells at high levels" and statements like "haste etc. will never be as good as mundane fighter attacks" plus the fact that Monte was the Wizard fan, Mearls the Fighter fan, and Monte be gone.

1) Wizard is the recognizable unarmored, 'weak', spellbook-dependent, limited-cast (except for say a feat for weak at-will attacks) class from 1e-3e. This means wizard will lag throughout the progression in combat at least, as he'll definitely start behind everyone at 1st; and at high-level, the best he can accomplish is unloading his full complement and having it shrugged off.  Meaning the Ftr beats him bloody at close or long range, prepared or not, any level. Wizard is now a utility class that the others keep around for noncombat uses, and can bully at will. High-level wizards in the campaign world are more like sages - respected for their usefulness but hardly feared. i.e. DM: "Behind the row of orcs stands ... the EVIL SAGE!"

2) In order to come close to balancing the statements made so far about Ftr, wizard is unrecognizable from the 1e-3e Wiz. He wears armor and has high HP and can stand toe-to-toe with the Ftr in melee. OR he has unlimited spells that are all weaksauce or utility-only (shift a foe 5' on failed save, spoil 1d4 food rations in foe's backpack, +1 to all poison saves for 1 second, open unlocked doors, light torches, etc.) OR some other combo that is a departure from 1e-3e Wiz.

And that's fine, many obviously want that. But either option means I'll be sticking to 1e-3e/PF. I daresay the player base will remain very much split.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 2, 2012)

mcintma said:


> I can see 2 outcomes from what I've read from fighter/wizard design. I base this on [paraphrasing] "fighter will be equal and can shrug off wizard spells at high levels" and statements like "haste etc. will never be as good as mundane fighter attacks" plus the fact that Monte was the Wizard fan, Mearls the Fighter fan, and Monte be gone.
> 
> 1) Wizard is the recognizable unarmored, 'weak', spellbook-dependent, limited-cast (except for say a feat for weak at-will attacks) class from 1e-3e. This means wizard will lag throughout the progression in combat at least, as he'll definitely start behind everyone at 1st; and at high-level, the best he can accomplish is unloading his full complement and having it shrugged off.  Meaning the Ftr beats him bloody at close or long range, prepared or not, any level. Wizard is now a utility class that the others keep around for noncombat uses, and can bully at will. High-level wizards in the campaign world are more like sages - respected for their usefulness but hardly feared. i.e. DM: "Behind the row of orcs stands ... the EVIL SAGE!"
> 
> ...



I think, hyperbole on tour...

The fighter of 2nd edition was able to shrug off most spells. A fact. But there were spells that just didn´t attack the fighter directly.
Defensive spells. Making holes in the ground. Making the ground very greasy, icy or something.
The 2e wizard just had to be more creative than just using direct attacks. In 3e, there was a different tactic: Hey fighter, what is yur will save? Ah, does not matter, you can´t beat the DC anyway. And now you are down two Persons.
Also spells like haste had serious drawbacks: you lost a year of life. So you could use it once in a while, but not as everyday tactic.

So please, stick to any edition, but stop pretending a 2nd edition wizard was as overpowered as a 3rd edition wizard compared to a fighter of the same edition.

Maybe a wizard could lay down a whole army once or twice a day, the fighter held everything together in pre 3e. (And this is from someone that did not like fighters back then.)

Even if a fighter never had a chance to kill the high level (prepared) wizard, against high level monsters, both could hold their own. The fighter was tough as nails. He only needed some kind of armor. The wizard could use spells to enhance the fighter´s performance. Add monsters, that were immune to some spells, 95% magic resistant, and you instantly notice, that wizards and fighters both were needed.

In 3rd edition all those balancing factors were thrown overboard (more or less accidently i guess)

So in 5e I expect saving throws and saving throw DC not scale as in 3e or 4e. I rather expect level bonuses to saves. None to DCs. I expect abilities for the fighter to make saving throws one round later to end effects. Those are concepts explored with 4e and they work great. Often you take out a combatant for one round, but then he comes back. In 4e even skipping one round is terrible, but I remember times, when a ghoul disabled someone for 10 minutes with no chance of recovery. Bad. Really bad.


----------



## billd91 (May 2, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The fighter of 2nd edition was able to shrug off most spells. A fact. But there were spells that just didn´t attack the fighter directly.
> Defensive spells. Making holes in the ground. Making the ground very greasy, icy or something.
> The 2e wizard just had to be more creative than just using direct attacks. In 3e, there was a different tactic: Hey fighter, what is yur will save? Ah, does not matter, you can´t beat the DC anyway. And now you are down two Persons.
> Also spells like haste had serious drawbacks: you lost a year of life. So you could use it once in a while, but not as everyday tactic.




A lot gets said about fighter saves in 1e/2e, but how many of you have really compared them? Overall, they have the best saves in the sense that they have or tie for the best saves more than any other character (the wizard, however, is very close behind him).

But for the first 8 levels, the fighter's saves are among the weakest or tie for the weakest as well. So that fighter isn't really shrugging off the wizard's spells any more than anybody else for a significant chunk of his career. He makes up for it for a while because of his fast save progression (every 2 levels) and because he hits his apex sooner than any other class (17th level compared to 21st). But for the levels when most people are actually playing 1e/2e characters (the first 10 levels or so), he's *more* vulnerable to spells than most other characters.

That doesn't mean that wizards and other spell casters are as powerful with their spells in 1e/2e as they are under the 3e save DC setting system and standard action casting times. In many ways they are not. Casting times and weapon speeds in 2e make getting off higher levels spells harder than in 3e. That limits the power a wizard can effectively bear on a regular basis. The basis of saving throw targets on the *target's* level/hit dice and range (all under 18 on a d20 and getting progressively easier as the target's might increases) also keeps the wizard less powerful compared to his target while in 3e his power tends to outstrip his target. Save or sit spells were a much riskier prospect in 1e/2e as far as being wasted actions than in 3e since the wizard could do very little to improve his odds of succeeding with them. In 3e, he can take feats, pump up his intelligence, cast a higher level spell, and fairly easily target a weak save that's not keeping up with the spell's level.


----------



## mcintma (May 2, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think, hyperbole on tour...
> 
> In 3e, there was a different tactic: Hey fighter, what is yur will save? Ah, does not matter, you can´t beat the DC anyway. And now you are down two Persons.




And you're accusing me of hyperbole? BTW the linear Ftr / Quad Wiz argument is by its very nature hyperbolic, notwithstanding that it has some solid points I wouldn't dispute. But yeah, I was on the hyperbolic side in my prev post I'll admit - I'm really p1sed that Monte's off 5e.

Other than that, I don't disagree with you that 3e made the Wiz more survivable, but I'd counter that his spells got toned-down too (3.5e/PF)  - looking through the 1e PHB, Wiz spells were more open-ended and potentially deadlier - disintegrate, wish, fireball (no 10HD cap), shapechange, spider climb, etc.

Where the real balance break happens IME is when DMs allow too much crafting/scribing time (so Wiz has crazy scroll/wand backups) and also the 15-min workday effect (the latter would be a problem thru 1e-3e).


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 2, 2012)

Daztur said:


> Well one of the things that 4ed does to balance wizards is strip out most of their combat as war-friendly abilities (which were pretty out of control in 3.5ed, especially since many of the limitations such as teleport error and system shock rolls for polymorphing had been stripped out). How to put them back in without upsetting game balance is a big challenge but hopefully 5ed will try to tackle it. What they seem to be doing (which may or may not be the best way), is using the three pillars and having the fighters be better at combat (basically CaS) and the wizard be better at exploration (roughly CaW).






Ratskinner said:


> No, not at all. But, if you pick a direction, _both _classes should follow it. Combat as War basically trumps Combat as Sport. 4e seems to have solved the LFQW problem by turning fighters and wizards (everybody, really) into "Combat as Sport" machines. That's okay, objectively, but a lot folks subjectively felt that was a pronounced deviation from previous D&D. So much so that the next edition is striving to reunite the player base.
> 
> Can both classes be made interesting, flavorful, and be "Combat as War" oriented? I dunno, but I think the abstract nature of D&D's combat system makes it harder to hit all three with the Fighter.




The key thing is that giving people Combat-As-War centric abilities doesn't promote Combat-As-War.  What it promotes is "The most dangerous game" - with the effect of the combat as war abilities to be to arm the people with them with night vision goggles, camo-suits, bullet proof body armour, and either assault rifles or sniper rifles.  Hunting other people armed with swords or bows and arrows.  Yes, you may kid yourselves in a warzone.  But unless you're playing Fantasy ing Vietnam against enemies who resemble Tucker's Kobolds and use low cunning and sheer viciousness to make up for a lack of special Combat As War abilities, you are for all practical purposes just playing a particularly vicious version of Combat As Sport.

If you want Combat as War, the agregate enemies need to be massively more powerful than the PCs to the point PCs need to fight asymmetrically.  And giving the PCs force multipliers (as Combat as War spells are) takes the threat out of the supposed superiority - you can almost always be sure of superior force at the given point.  So for a good CaW experience, take most of the CaW toys away or they themselves will turn war into a sport.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2012)

SkidAce said:


> Combat as War and Combat as Sport seems to be referencing the Strategic and Tactical levels of combat...is this how ya'll are using them?



No, it's more a crypto-edition-war thing.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2012)

mcintma said:


> And you're accusing me of hyperbole? BTW the linear Ftr / Quad Wiz argument is by its very nature hyperbolic,



I suppose the trajectory of the Wizard's power might be hyperbolic....


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 2, 2012)

billd91 said:


> A lot gets said about fighter saves in 1e/2e, but how many of you have really compared them? Overall, they have the best saves in the sense that they have or tie for the best saves more than any other character (the wizard, however, is very close behind him).
> 
> But for the first 8 levels, the fighter's saves are among the weakest or tie for the weakest as well. So that fighter isn't really shrugging off the wizard's spells any more than anybody else for a significant chunk of his career. He makes up for it for a while because of his fast save progression (every 2 levels) and because he hits his apex sooner than any other class (17th level compared to 21st). But for the levels when most people are actually playing 1e/2e characters (the first 10 levels or so), he's *more* vulnerable to spells than most other characters.
> 
> That doesn't mean that wizards and other spell casters are as powerful with their spells in 1e/2e as they are under the 3e save DC setting system and standard action casting times. In many ways they are not. Casting times and weapon speeds in 2e make getting off higher levels spells harder than in 3e. That limits the power a wizard can effectively bear on a regular basis. The basis of saving throw targets on the *target's* level/hit dice and range (all under 18 on a d20 and getting progressively easier as the target's might increases) also keeps the wizard less powerful compared to his target while in 3e his power tends to outstrip his target. Save or sit spells were a much riskier prospect in 1e/2e as far as being wasted actions than in 3e since the wizard could do very little to improve his odds of succeeding with them. In 3e, he can take feats, pump up his intelligence, cast a higher level spell, and fairly easily target a weak save that's not keeping up with the spell's level.



Ok, you are right... against magic he is not the best. But overall his saves are great. 
And he is not lagging that much behind in the spell save department!


----------



## billd91 (May 2, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> And he is not lagging that much behind in the spell save department!




That's partly the point of having the limited range of save targets in 1e/2e. Nobody is lagging that far behind! Except the thief and his saves vs breath weapons. I can't figure out the point of that one at all. Of all of the 1e/2e saves, the thief's table is the worst and the save vs breath weapon head-scratchingly bad.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 2, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> I think part of the point of 5e is not to pick a direction, but to support many diverse styles.




I agree. I'm not sure how they do that with such a core part of the game, but I suspect its possible. I've mentioned in other threads that I'm curious to see how this eventually works. I think there's general agreement that starting from simple and adding complexity is the way to go. I think its an open question whether there is a similar "direction" between CaW and CaS.



Tony Vargas said:


> I remember the combat as war/sport thread, and I didn't find the implied superiority of one over the other a very compelling idea.




I'm only speaking of superiority in effect, not RP experience. You can be a great fighter in the ring, but the guy who sneaks up on you with a shotgun still wins. (I watch American Football, I don't think it'd be as enjoyable is the players were allowed to bring weapons. Others may disagree.)

My original point was that in earlier editions, magic was the shotgun. I was expressing my opinion that most of the things that you can do to make D&D's abstract combat system more interesting for the fighter tend to be CaS. If magical combat effects in 5e go back to more CaW effects (Stopping Time, Holding, flat out Save or Die, etc.), then I suspect the LFQW problem will resurrect itself. Hopefully, I'm wrong.



Tony Vargas said:


> I'm sorry, but how are all 4e characters 'machines?'  I've had a good time RPing a number of character under the system, and never felt I was running a robot.  What exactly are you driving at?




::Sigh:: Dial down the edition war sensitivity, man. I'm not taking shots at 4e. 4e doesn't address roleplaying ruleswise any more or less than the other editions, AFAICT. D&D has always played a little loose and undefined in that area. 4e Characters are CaS machines because that was how they were intentionally designed, its one of 4e's selling points. (Reduction of SoD, everybody has interesting maneuvers, etc.) Its integral to how they balanced the classes. Making the math transparent and all that, plus the actual math (an appropriate-level monster should take X hits before dying, etc.) are all CaS. The way 4e sets up combat to go "like so", is no different than the NFL or MLB changing rules to limit or encourage certain types of events or results in the game.

And, just to be clear. THAT ISN'T INHERENTLY A BAD OR GOOD WAY TO PLAY D&D. However, the fact that 5e is even attempting to "reunite" the player base or whatever-ya-wanna-call-it, indicates that that didn't go down so hot with the D&D public as a whole. I like 4e, but currently I'm alone amongst my gaming group in that regard, and have been for a few years. That's okay with me, because I'm not as married to any particular edition as a lot of folks seem to be.  



Tony Vargas said:


> I'm not sure how that applies here, though.  The fighter described my Mr. Mearls is very much the classic AD&D fighter.




Hopefully the above will indicate some of why I think it applies. I agree about the description. While I didn't explicitly say so when introducing the idea, I think this is one of the things that made the Fighter, "the toughest class to design." 



Tony Vargas said:


> Well, if you can't hit interesting, flavorful, balanced, /and/ "Combat as War," maybe that says something about "Combat as War" as a litmus test for a game.




Maybe, but I'm not sure who's using it as a litmus test for a game. Part of the mechanical design issue is that a lot of CaW takes place _outside of combat_ (sabotage, setting up ambushes, subverting allies, etc.) So, to some extent, CaW is served by making the Fighter more viable in the other pillars. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Why is it only a problem for the Fighter, though?  The fighter is a straightforward enough archetype, and in fiction and legend often does some very remarkable things.  Magic is a lot less consistent in genre, most often being very narrative in nature - wizards provide exposition, plot-enablement, and the occasional deus ex machina; evil sorcerers provide fearsome foes that are overcome in profoundly plot-driven narrative ways - all tropes very much at odds with CaW.




Oh, I mostly agree with you here, and its part of my point. The fundamental problem with the way D&D has traditionally viewed Wizards....as PCs/protagonists. Wizards as anything but a Deus Ex Machina or villain are a relatively recent phenomenon in genre, IMO.  So, in a fairy tale, a grumpy enchantress turns you into a frog until you get a kiss from a princess. That's not Combat as anything, but take away the narrative context, and Polymorph is suddenly a CaW effect. Magic in narratives where the Wizard is the protagonist tends to be much more limited, unreliable,  and often has tremendous "backlash" of one kind or another.  3e made magic much more reliable and removed almost all the "backlash" from previous versions...exacerbating the LFQW problem. 

Anyway, I hope that makes my points clearer.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 2, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> No, it's more a crypto-edition-war thing.




Which, to be honest, you do seem to promote a bit, with the constant use of the words "balance" and "broken" (though I do agree with you on some points).

I never saw Fighters in pre-4th Ed holding the Wizard's jockstrap as so many espouse on these and other boards, and not all of the parties I DMed for (or were in as a player) had a Cleric or Druid (healer) in the party, and we managed just fine.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 2, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> I suppose the trajectory of the Wizard's power might be hyperbolic....




I always thought exponential, myself.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 2, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The key thing is that giving people Combat-As-War centric abilities doesn't promote Combat-As-War.  What it promotes is "The most dangerous game" - with the effect of the combat as war abilities to be to arm the people with them with night vision goggles, camo-suits, bullet proof body armour, and either assault rifles or sniper rifles.  Hunting other people armed with swords or bows and arrows.  Yes, you may kid yourselves in a warzone.  But unless you're playing Fantasy ing Vietnam against enemies who resemble Tucker's Kobolds and use low cunning and sheer viciousness to make up for a lack of special Combat As War abilities, you are for all practical purposes just playing a particularly vicious version of Combat As Sport.
> 
> If you want Combat as War, the agregate enemies need to be massively more powerful than the PCs to the point PCs need to fight asymmetrically.  And giving the PCs force multipliers (as Combat as War spells are) takes the threat out of the supposed superiority - you can almost always be sure of superior force at the given point.  So for a good CaW experience, take most of the CaW toys away or they themselves will turn war into a sport.




That's an interesting perspective. I generally agree with the idea of taking away the PCs' special CaW powers. I don't think CaW actually _needs_ special mechanical support. Since so much of CaW ideally takes place outside actual combat, supporting CaW is merely supporting the other pillars, IMO.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 2, 2012)

Some folks may have latched onto the CaS/CaW thing to continue the edition war, but I don't think there is anything inherent in the idea that makes it so.  (Actually, I'm sure there has been some such latching, given the "any stick is good enough to beat edition X" with mentality.)  Rather, CaS/CaW points to different influences in how the story is going to be told.  CaS is Lancelot and Gawain tilting for the same fair maiden's favor.  CaW is trying to avoid getting poisoned by Mordred in the process. 

And of course, most stories have a mix--and not in the same proportions or evenly, either.  Games can probably tend to more extremes than stories without totally breaking--because you've still got the game part to hold it together.  Even so, I suspect it is a rare CaS game that doesn't have a bit of off the wall stuff allowed, and I suspect it is a rare CaW game that doesn't have some "fair play" agreements that puts some things off limits.

One thing I personally can't stand is a game pretending to one extreme while being actually run as the other.  For example, picture a campaign that sells itself as Fantasy Vietnam, but thanks to DM fiat and other such means, no character ever dies.  I realize that some people play for an atmosphere as much as anything else, but I'm not one of them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 2, 2012)

billd91 said:


> That's partly the point of having the limited  range of save targets in 1e/2e. Nobody is lagging that far behind!  Except the thief and his saves vs breath weapons. I can't figure out the  point of that one at all. Of all of the 1e/2e saves, the thief's table  is the worst and the save vs breath weapon head-scratchingly  bad.



maybe to encourage hiding very well when going into the dragon´s hoard...


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2012)

Ratskinner said:


> I agree. I'm not sure how they do that with such a core part of the game, but I suspect its possible.



Nod.  I supsect it isn't.  But, then, I didn't think it'd bee possible to balance fighters & wizards in D&D, and 4e went and did it.  So I have a record of being pleasantly surprised.



> I think there's general agreement that starting from simple and adding complexity is the way to go. I think its an open question whether there is a similar "direction" between CaW and CaS.



I'd hesitate to claim a 'general agreement' around here.   What I'm sure won't work is starting with limited options/power, and bolting-on new options that add power.  What might work while retaining some balance is starting with a complex framework 'behind the curtain,' and using it more as a design standard to build simple-seeming classes with most choices already made.  Then, in modules, not adding complexity, but revealing it.  In that way, the 'simple' character can be played along side the 'complex' one without it being at a great disadvantage.

The perfect example in 4e is Backgrounds & Themes.  The game didn't have them initially.  When they were added as options, the characters that opted for them gained additional benefits over and above those that didn't.  While those benefits were mostly pretty minor, it's still a pattern that needs to be avoided, because, if multiplied by the many modules we should probably expect from 5e, it could result in vast gulfs in effectiveness between 'simple' and 'complex' options. 

More concisely:  'simple' must not be inferior to 'complex.'




> I'm only speaking of superiority in effect, not RP experience. You can be a great fighter in the ring, but the guy who sneaks up on you with a shotgun still wins.



Nod.  He also gets the gas chamber.

CaW is presented as about 'thinking outside the box' and the like, finding ways to sieze.  In other words, finding overwhelming advantage or exploit weakness.  Cheating, in the context of a game.   When it's happening in the context of the imagined world, that's fine in an RPG, even though it's a game, you're not cheating, you're following the rules to model your characters 'cheating.'  When it's happening at the meta-game level, it's just powergaming, often quite disruptive and undesireable powergaming.

The former sort of in-character CaW style is well-supported by a balanced - and detailed - game system.  The latter sort is supported by a poorly balanced system, and not, IMHO, at all desireable at the table, unless there's a unanimous enthusiasm for it.



> My original point was that in earlier editions, magic was the shotgun.



Magic was often 'broken' yes.  



> I was expressing my opinion that most of the things that you can do to make D&D's abstract combat system more interesting for the fighter tend to be CaS. If magical combat effects in 5e go back to more CaW effects (Stopping Time, Holding, flat out Save or Die, etc.), then I suspect the LFQW problem will resurrect itself. Hopefully, I'm wrong.



There is nothing inately in-character 'CaW' about broken or overpowered or badly-written magic systems.  Yes, they make the metagame take on a 'CaW' feel, as everyone scrambles for the most broken thing, and the game devolves into a sort of arms race.  

To make the fighter and wizard work with either a CaW or CaS aproach in-game simply requires a balanced system.  And that requires looking at casters as protagonists in a story, viable choices within a game, or established technologies in a theatre of war.  



> 4e Characters are CaS machines because that was how they were intentionally designed, its one of 4e's selling points.



They were intentionally designed to be balanced.  Balance supports both styles.  Imbalance only suports metagaming, and makes it boring into the bargain if the imbalance is extreme.  

I'm afraid you're conflating something.  D&D /is/ a game.  Of course it will need to have game balance.  That's analogous to the 'fairness' of aproaching combat as a 'sport' - a structured contest with rules, but it does not force that style of play within the imagined world the game represents.  Rogues may be balanced characters in the metagame, for instance, but to the imaginary monsters they stab in the back, they must not seem to be 'playing fair,' at all.



> And, just to be clear. THAT ISN'T INHERENTLY A BAD OR GOOD WAY TO PLAY D&D. However, the fact that 5e is even attempting to "reunite" the player base or whatever-ya-wanna-call-it, indicates that that didn't go down so hot with the D&D public as a whole.



Every edition has had it's hold-outs.  3.5 just had the SRD and Paizo waiting to cater to those hold-outs.  That's the only difference between the rejection of 4e by 3.5 hold-outs, and the rejection of 3e by AD&D hold-outs.



> Maybe, but I'm not sure who's using it as a litmus test for a game. Part of the mechanical design issue is that a lot of CaW takes place _outside of combat_ (sabotage, setting up ambushes, subverting allies, etc.) So, to some extent, CaW is served by making the Fighter more viable in the other pillars.



That would be awesome.



> Oh, I mostly agree with you here, and its part of my point. The fundamental problem with the way D&D has traditionally viewed Wizards....as PCs/protagonists. Wizards as anything but a Deus Ex Machina or villain are a relatively recent phenomenon in genre, IMO.  So, in a fairy tale, a grumpy enchantress turns you into a frog until you get a kiss from a princess. That's not Combat as anything, but take away the narrative context, and Polymorph is suddenly a CaW effect.






> Magic in narratives where the Wizard is the protagonist tends to be much more limited, unreliable,  and often has tremendous "backlash" of one kind or another.



I'm not sure I'd agree.  Magic when it's being used on the protagonist's behalf by a supporting character is often that way, because the story has to be about the protagonist, not the magic that let him easily win through.  When magic finally makes it into the hands of the protagonist, it often becomes much more reliable and understandable, and much less powerful.  If it remains powerful, it's generally also in the hands of all the protagonists 'real' foes, and also any allies or co-protagonists in an ensemble.  

In other words, magic has to become balanced in some sense to become the tool of the hero, rather than the tool of the plot, the helper, or the villain.

In 4e, magic was made balanced by making it no more powerful (though still more versatile) than non-magical heroic abilities.  In Harry Potter, magic was balanced by making it the focus of the story - everyone who mattered (anyone who might be PC) had magic.  

D&D, coming at the early stages of mage-as-protagonist made the understanible and disasterous mistake of giving PC magic-users antagonist/plot-device level magic, and trying to 'limit it down' to protagonist-apropriate levels (actually support-character-apropriate).  And the game has been an imbalanced shambles for the longest time as a result of that initial error.    



> 3e made magic much more reliable and removed almost all the "backlash" from previous versions...exacerbating the LFQW problem.



Very true.  The AD&D caster was barely-playable.  The demand of healing on the Cleric kept it from being anything but support, the physical weakness and profound limitations on casting made it hard for the magic-user to contribute consistently (or at all at all levels).  3e took note of the problem and made magic more useable and consistent, as required to model a 'protagonist,' and thus also more playable.  It just failed to dial down the power to match, and the result was the optimization tiers and endless 'Fighter SUX' threads on the WotC boards. 

4e finally achieved balance by further removing limitations from casting, but bringing casting down, and non-casting up, to the same level of 'protagonist-apropriate' power. An elegant solution, rejected for being different.  As any improvement, sadly, must be.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Please provide examples.





Quickleaf said:


> Ah I see, you're looking for examples where fighters beat up wizards or otherwise prove themselves an equal or better challenge to a wizard.



The first example I think of is Conan killing Thugra Khotan in Black Colossus.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 3, 2012)

I thought combat-as-war meant caster abilities are open-ended, constrained only by the broadest possible interpretation of a paragraph or two of equivocal text. Non-casters otoh are constrained by our considerable real world knowledge regarding the capabilities of muscle and metal.

Under combat-as-war, the reversed version of the 1st level cleric spell, _create water_ - _destroy water_ - can slay a humanoid, because the human body is comprised of 60% water.


----------



## Lost Soul (May 4, 2012)

I have a few complaints with Mike Mearl's approach to the fighter and I will list them below. Please let me know what you think in regards to them.

1) The fighter is the "best" at combat. I do not think that is fair to the other fighter "sub-classes" such as paladin, ranger and barbarian. Shoudl the fighter be better at fighting


----------



## ArmoredSaint (May 4, 2012)

Lost Soul said:


> I have a few complaints with Mike Mearl's approach to the fighter and I will list them below. Please let me know what you think in regards to them.
> 
> 1) The fighter is the "best" at combat. I do not think that is fair to the other fighter "sub-classes" such as paladin, ranger and barbarian. Shoudl the fighter be better at fighting



As others have said, it will be fine if those other classes are just themes/backgrounds of the Fighter class.

Additionally, those other classes have other areas in which they have the opportunity to shine, while the Fighter focuses on combat.  Fighting should be _owned_ by the Fighter.


----------



## Libramarian (May 4, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e finally achieved balance by further removing limitations from casting, but bringing casting down, and non-casting up, to the same level of 'protagonist-apropriate' power. An elegant solution, rejected for being different.  As any improvement, sadly, must be.



D&D characters are NOT protagonists. This is a pernicious idea I think. It creates way too much player entitlement for D&D.


----------



## Oni (May 4, 2012)

ArmoredSaint said:


> Additionally, those other classes have other areas in which they have the opportunity to shine, while the Fighter focuses on combat.  Fighting should be _owned_ by the Fighter.




I think this is the real problem right here, the fighter is too hyper-focused on combat.  It shouldn't be that the fighter has to shine so much brighter in combat because he sucks at everything else, it should be that he's good at the sorts of things a fighting-man, a warrior, a knight, a soldier, et c. can do.  I personally don't want to go back to the situation where my Fighter is incompetent at horsemanship, climbing, swimming, athletics, intimidating folks, reading a battlefield, negotiating a surrender, surviving on his own, repairing his kit, field dressing wounds, being aware of his environment, slipping past enemy patrols, et c., because he's just a combat class and doesn't have any skills 'cause that wouldn't be balanced.  Make fighters competent at the sorts of things a well trained soldier might be able to do and quit worrying about stepping on the skill classes and you might get somewhere.


----------



## GM Dave (May 4, 2012)

ArmoredSaint said:


> As others have said, it will be fine if those other classes are just themes/backgrounds of the Fighter class.
> 
> Additionally, those other classes have other areas in which they have the opportunity to shine, while the Fighter focuses on combat.  Fighting should be _owned_ by the Fighter.




If fighting is 'owned' by the Fighter Class then does this mean that the other Fighter options will be superior with the other 'pillars' as compensation?

Does this mean that if I choose the Fighter Class then I am choosing to not be capable of leading troops (Roleplaying/Social) and unable to navigate a ship (Exploration)?

I'll allow the idea of Fighter as master of combat but then they need to be sub-par in the other pillars to compensate.

Paladins and Warlords need to get better Roleplaying/Social then Fighters.  Rangers and Barbarians/Berserkers need to get better Exploration then Fighters.

If the Fighter is to be the King of Battle then it should be as a solo act with no 2nd act.


----------



## pemerton (May 4, 2012)

From Tom Moldvay's Foreword to the Basic Rulebook (page B2, and dated 3 December 1980):

I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave. . .

I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shoulted my battle cry and charged.

My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut just inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero.​
From the Introduction to the same book (page B3):

In the D&D rules, individuals play the role of characters in a fantasy world wher magic is real and heroes venture out on dangerous quests in search of fame and fortune.​
From the Introduction to Gary Gygax's Player's Handbook (p 7):

*ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS* is a world. Of course, this world is not complete. It needs organizers and adventurers to order and explore it. It neds you! . . . Into this world of weird monsters, strange peoples, multitudinous states, and fabulous treasures of precious items and powerful magic stride fearless adventurers - you and your fellow players.​
Under the heading "The Game" in the same book (p 7):

[O]ne player must serve as the _Dungeon Master_, the shaper of the fantasy milieu, the "world" in which all action will take place. The other participants become _adventurers_ by creating characters to explore the fantastic world and face all of its challenges - monsters, magic, and unamed menaces.​
Moldvay's Foreword is the most evocative of these passages, but all seem to me to very strongly imply that the PCs are protagonists in a fantasy adventure. _The PCs_ venture out on dangerous quests in search of fame and fortune, striding through the world created by the GM (Gygax's description of this is reminisicent of Conan as described in the Nemedian Chronicles), exploring that world and facing all of its challenges.

Moldvay's Foreword also seems quite pertinent to this thread, as it shows the fighter and the cleric in their traditional literary relationship - the fighter as protagonist, the magician/sage a mysterious background figure (or, to put it more bluntly, a plot device).


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 4, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> D&D characters are NOT protagonists. This is a pernicious idea I think. It creates way too much player entitlement for D&D.



But this is what the marketing has sold us. This is from an advert for Basic D&D in White Dwarf #53, 1984, emphasis mine -
If you have ever read a book or seen a film and thought "I wouldn't do that!" when the hero does something stupid, then role-playing games are for you. Imagine a story where you can make the decisions and change the outcome, a story where you are the *hero* or *heroine*...​

EDIT: The other issue is that 'rpg as story' is a perfectly valid playstyle (or, I should say, playstyles), which many rpg-ers prefer. It's been around since almost the very beginning, is acknowledged in White Dwarf and Dragon articles in the late 70s, and fully adopted by TSR with Dragonlance in the early 80s.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 4, 2012)

_Disclaimer: I'm just expressing my view, and how I experience things; this post is entirely biased, and I readily admit that others will experience things contrary to what I say, and thus nothing I write here should be taken as a declaration of universal truth or theoretically superior take on how to play the game._

I _really_ dislike the idea of the PCs as protagonists being the assumption. If it is assumed, you get PC/NPC disparity (what my players and I might call "inconsistencies") within the mechanics. I dislike the idea that the mechanics address PCs and NPCs differently. This is obviously not universally shared in game design, but it's definitely my take on it.

I'd like consistent rules between PCs and NPCs. And not "consistent rules for PCs" and "consistent rules for NPCs", but truly consistent rules for both. I want the rules to do this to aid in clarity for everyone involved. That is, the players know if something is possible/impossible, and it gives them a frame of reference for what they can expect within the fiction of the game world, providing less reason to be pulled out of immersion.

I also dislike mechanics that aim for any "cinematic" feel, or any mechanic that follows the so-called "rule of cool." While I understand these mechanics, they do nothing for me. They do not make me feel awesome. They might produce neat or cool scenes, sure. I will probably derive enjoyment from them, though odds are it'll lessen with time and frequency (such is the way of many things, I suppose).

That's why I prefer a certain amount of randomness to determine when things are "cinematic" or not. It also aids in tension. For example, critical hits (with a damage multiplier) serve this goal well. When you can't rely on the ability, the tension builds, creating a greater enjoyment payoff when the effect works or appears. If a PC is down, one is sent running, and you're the last guy between the orc warchief and the sage PC, getting that critical hit and downing the bad guy is pretty epic.

Now, if I can "I get a critical hit" now (some PrC from 3.X, daily's from 4e, etc.), it still feels cool. There was tension, and I won the day with my ability. I feel good. It's enjoyable. It's just not as epic. I've described the scene that happened relatively recently where a regenerating PC smeared some "essence of death" (remains from an avatar of death) on his right hand, on the off chance he could get the dragon they were about to provoke to bite his hand. The opportunity never came up, but the dragon bit him, and I rolled (openly, at that) and, to our amazement, the "hit" landed on his right arm, biting off his hand at the elbow. The dragon took damage, of course, but the hit was completely random, and only had a 1 in 100 chance of landing on that hand. That was awesome. Using an ability that said "and now he bites my right hand" would be cool, and would be enjoyable. It wouldn't be near what the randomness made it, though.

I want that level of awesome. I want randomness, and tension. I don't want to dictate when and how the scene plays out, all things being equal on both sides. I want to see what happens this time. I want to see if the PCs really do survive this fight, or if the bad guy goes down to a lucky hit, or if the PCs get interrupted during their travels by a merchant, wayward prince, or group of friendly bandits.

The PCs being assumed to be the protagonists (with the game being designed with that in mind) can produce a lot of enjoyable scenes. If, however, the PCs are assumed to be characters in a story, with no great plot protection, then I'd say that they can be given tools that might elevate them to that level. However, I want time to inform me if that's the case, not the mechanics. I want to _see_ if the character lives to the end of the series, not assume he does. That randomness and lack of strong plot protection is key for me to immerse, to feel involved, and to feel that level of _awesome_.

Say what you will of 3.5 or 4e's death and dying mechanics, the "you need to roll to avoid dying" brings on the tension. I've had those "you need to make this to live" (1 in 10 in 3.5) pop up quite a few times, and the players get this look of such excitement when they make it. You don't get that excitement from "I use my Fate Point to stabilize." There's no tension. You get the same narrative, but you don't get the same enjoyment.

But that's just me. My game preferences aren't going to fit many people. Most people, probably. That's fine. That's the beauty of the game. If 5e really does pursue the "you're the protagonists in a story of heroic fantasy!" style of presentation (with attached mechanics), I hope they're something easy to discard (like Fate Points). That way, everyone wins. I don't much care what the assumption is, as long as you can peel away the plot protection pretty easily. Some people would rather play Eddard Stark than Rand al'Thor. As always, play what you like


----------



## billd91 (May 4, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Some people would rather play Eddard Stark than Rand al'Thor. As always, play what you like




But... Edd Stark was one of the protagonists in Game of Thrones. Clearly the readers are meant to identify with him and he's a main focal character. Each book has multiple protagonists and some drift in and out of that role. I don't see how wanting to play the Edds of the world prevent the PCs from being protagonists while they are actively in the game.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 4, 2012)

billd91 said:


> But... Edd Stark was one of the protagonists in Game of Thrones. Clearly the readers are meant to identify with him and he's a main focal character. Each book has multiple protagonists and some drift in and out of that role. I don't see how wanting to play the Edds of the world prevent the PCs from being protagonists while they are actively in the game.



Context of "protagonist" in both my post and the posts I was responding to seemed to speak more towards "plot protection" for the characters rather than "the guy you're rooting for" (which is normally the way protagonist is used). I was speaking within that context. Obviously, Eddard Stark was indeed a protagonist. I hope that my point was clear, though (or, that it is now). As always, play what you like


----------



## Sunseeker (May 4, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Context of "protagonist" in both my post and the posts I was responding to seemed to speak more towards "plot protection" for the characters rather than "the guy you're rooting for" (which is normally the way protagonist is used). I was speaking within that context. Obviously, Eddard Stark was indeed a protagonist. I hope that my point was clear, though (or, that it is now). As always, play what you like




Players should be whatever is fitting to the game.  If that means having a protective bubble around them, I'm sure there are other reasons to be engaged by the game besides the threat of death.  If it means they're antagonists, or jut random adventurers, I'm sure the campaign will be appropriately tailored to it.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 5, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Players should be whatever is fitting to the game.  If that means having a protective bubble around them, I'm sure there are other reasons to be engaged by the game besides the threat of death.  If it means they're antagonists, or jut random adventurers, I'm sure the campaign will be appropriately tailored to it.



Hopefully that's easily achievable in the game


----------



## pemerton (May 5, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> I _really_ dislike the idea of the PCs as protagonists being the assumption. If it is assumed, you get PC/NPC disparity (what my players and I might call "inconsistencies") within the mechanics.



I don't think this is true, though. In Basic D&D there is no strong PC/NPC differential in character building but, as per my quotes above, the PCs are protagonists.

In AD&D there is some differential (see eg the table for NPC stat requirements in the DMG, which makes NPCs different in their requirements from PCs) but it's pretty minimal. And in AD&D, the PCs are (or at least are presented by the PHB as) protagonists.

And to take a more clearcut case, Burning Wheel does not distinguish between PC and NPCs in its build rules, yet PCs in that game are quite overtly protagonists.

It seems to me that the main indicator of PC protagonism in an RPG isn't the character build mechanics, but the encounter/world build rules/guidelines. Is the world built for the _PCs_ to explore? Is the heroic quest one that th _PCs_ must undertake. Are the enemy cultists opposed to the _PC cleric's_ god? Did the NPC villain, before s/he rose to current heights of ignominy, kill the _PC's_ parents?

It seems to me that PC protagonism is as old (or nearly as old) as RPGing itself.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is true, though.



My players do. From experience. Sorry your views differ, but I'm not really going to be swayed on this front. Too much personal experience tells me otherwise. 



pemerton said:


> And to take a more clearcut case, Burning Wheel does not distinguish between PC and NPCs in its build rules, yet PCs in that game are quite overtly protagonists.



You're speaking of "build" and I'm speaking of "disparity." Since the PCs are protagonists, they are afforded luxuries that NPCs don't have, whether this takes the form of fate points or something subtler (like social skills being able to be rolled against NPCs but not PCs), the base assumption of the PCs succeeding at mundane tasks relatively easily ("Say Yes"), and the like.



pemerton said:


> It seems to me that the main indicator of PC protagonism in an RPG isn't the character build mechanics, but the encounter/world build rules/guidelines.
> 
> It seems to me that PC protagonism is as old (or nearly as old) as RPGing itself.



These are all factors as well. Was the game built for special PCs? Are they assumed awesome and the best, and the rules reflect that? Are there exceptions to the PCs that are not made to NPCs? Do the PCs have privileges that NPCs do not, such as Fate Points, social skills, the "Rule of Cool", or the "Say Yes" mantra behind them that gets them a good amount of mundane stuff without much hassle (that many NPC peasants might love to have behind them)?

While many of these mechanics are meta in nature, they no doubt affect the PCs. Since "the PCs are protagonists" is a metagame statement, that's no surprise. However, the mechanical implementation that is then inserted into the game to make this statement realized certainly affects the PCs (even if it's at a metagame level). Thus the PC/NPC disparity I mentioned earlier, and the "inconsistency" that my players see in the game.

Again, it's just taste. But, as it is taste, I was saying I'd rather the "PCs as protagonists" mechanics be easily added or subtracted, rather than baked in. Something like Fate Points accomplishes this goal well, as you can just turn the system on or off. "Now we get plot protection! Now we don't!" Easy as a lightswitch.

However, something like social skills only working on NPCs but not PCs is baked deeper into the system. Sure, you can easily change that, too, but this is usually just a piece you're picking out. That is, there's going to be small changes all over the system that needs to be made in order to get rid of the assumption. Thus the statement of mine that you quoted:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I really dislike the idea of the PCs as protagonists being the assumption. If it is assumed, you get PC/NPC disparity (what my players and I might call "inconsistencies") within the mechanics.



I feel that if the assumption is that PCs are protagonists from the get-go, it's usually baked into the game, rather than layered on. I'd rather something be layered on and easily removed than picked out piece by piece. That's all I was saying there, really. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (May 6, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Was the game built for special PCs? Are they assumed awesome and the best, and the rules reflect that? Are there exceptions to the PCs that are not made to NPCs? Do the PCs have privileges that NPCs do not, such as Fate Points, social skills, the "Rule of Cool", or the "Say Yes" mantra behind them that gets them a good amount of mundane stuff without much hassle (that many NPC peasants might love to have behind them)?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



The original Ravenloft module posits the PCs as protagonists - they get their fortunes told by the Vistani fortune teller, and Strahd - the villain of the piece - is out to defeat them.

But the mechanics are still just the regular AD&D mechanics, which don't distinguish between PCs and NPCs in resolution.



JamesonCourage said:


> the base assumption of the PCs succeeding at mundane tasks relatively easily ("Say Yes")



Now you've lost me. To the extent that it makes sense to talk about it, the NPCs of the world live almost entirely in a "say yes" world, given that no one rolls dice for most of their actions.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But the mechanics are still just the regular AD&D mechanics, which don't distinguish between PCs and NPCs in resolution.



Including the acquisition of special abilities, magic, and the like?



pemerton said:


> Now you've lost me. To the extent that it makes sense to talk about it, the NPCs of the world live almost entirely in a "say yes" world, given that no one rolls dice for most of their actions.



But they don't get as much of a benefit for it. Players are constantly reinforced and supported by that mantra, and their PCs prosper for it. Not quite the same for peasants, who the GM effectively "Says Yes" to when it comes to peasantry, and nothing else. By assuming the PCs are better, and that they deserve better (without rolls or capabilities), they benefit more from this mantra than NPCs do (the majority of the time). As always, play what you like


----------

