Mearls just tried his best, it says it here:

[Aharon]

Or:
WotC tries to cash in on Diablo2's popularity and creates a DnD-spinoff specifically to enable you to compute Diablo by hand:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/main.asp?x=d2/diabloii,3

[Lokathor]

Yeah a friend had the Diablo 1 version of all that when 3e just came out.

[hogarth]

Guys, Diablo is not at all DnD. What I mean is that spamming moves in Diablo doesn't make you sit through the dice rolls and math of doing the same move each time, it's all done by computer. It looks flashy while it's going on. There are big giant health and mana meters to manage along with your location (since you can dodge spells and stuff) and current special technique (spell/skill/aura/etc).

If people had to compute Diablo by hand and/or in their head, they would not at all want a clickfest, and they would quite possibly spit at you for suggesting it.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Things are tedious not simply because of repetition; in the case of 4E, it's because of slow repetition with little or no sensory feedback.

[ModelCitizen]

Vidjagames can get away with less engaging RPG elements because of twitch. Casting Blessed Hammer five million times would be boring as fuck in tabletop, but in Diablo I have a fraction of a second to move so the invisible spiral lines up with the mob. It's not much twitch but it's enough to get away with having two-button paladins instead of ten.

Diablo also doesn't have other humans in the room I could talk to instead. A TTRPG has to be more engaging than regular social interaction. Diablo just has to be more engaging than watching South Park reruns.

[Swordslinger]

It's also a question of market, though. Roulette was big many decades ago, but it's fallen to videogame-ish slots. Most casinos have a few roulette wheels...and thousands of slot machines.

Well slots are pretty much the same level of tactically boring as roulette anyway. So if you want to use slots as the example then that's fine.

So, yeah, people liked those old games way back when, but those days are past, and people know there's something better, or at least should be. Saying people liked "I attack" games a decade ago might be true, but it's not helpful for identifying what people want now.

I'm still not certain that age has passed. I look at 3E and I primarily see fighters that do nothing but say "I attack."

Even 4E essentials drifted away from the fighter with special attacks to basic attack based characters. Shadowrun for gun types is very much an "I attack" type of game.

While there are a lot of antiquated practices which have been abandoned, like rolling for stats, the simple tactics warrior is still very much alive today.

[Previn]

I'm still not certain that age has passed. I look at 3E and I primarily see fighters that do nothing but say "I attack."

There's nothing wrong with 'I attack' when you're in combat. There is a problem when 'I attack' when you're just making a full attack and doing nothing else all the time.

As the most effective ways to build fighters tend to not be just full attacks, I rarely see that. If your group thinks that full attacks are good and amazing things, then they're probably playing at a level low enough, that yes full attacks are.

However, even given just the SRD to build a fighter at 15th level only using feats, I've got the option to move and attack, full attack, spring attack, whirlwind, trip (with improved trip), disarm, sunder, bull rush, overrun, charge, fight defensively, make extra AoOs and Cleave. That's also before choosing the creature for my dodge bonus and deciding what, if any my Combat Expertise and Power Attack are set at.

So that's a lot of different versions of 'I attack,' numerous 'sort of attacks' and several choices to be made. Playing a fighter may be underpowered, but it's really not limited to the hyperbole of 'I attack' as presented.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'm still not certain that age has passed. I look at 3E and I primarily see fighters that do nothing but say "I attack."

There's nothing wrong with 'I attack' when you're in combat. There is a problem when 'I attack' when you're just making a full attack and doing nothing else all the time.

As the most effective ways to build fighters tend to not be just full attacks, I rarely see that. If your group thinks that full attacks are good and amazing things, then they're probably playing at a level low enough, that yes full attacks are.

However, even given just the SRD to build a fighter at 15th level only using feats, I've got the option to move and attack, full attack, spring attack, whirlwind, trip (with improved trip), disarm, sunder, bull rush, overrun, charge, fight defensively, make extra AoOs and Cleave. That's also before choosing the creature for my dodge bonus and deciding what, if any my Combat Expertise and Power Attack are set at.

So that's a lot of different versions of 'I attack,' numerous 'sort of attacks' and several choices to be made. Playing a fighter may be underpowered, but it's really not limited to the hyperbole of 'I attack' as presented.

It's interesting that you say that full attacking is more effective at low levels. I was under the impression that full attacks were irrelevant at low levels, and it was only later (when characters start getting multiple attacks) that they become vital. After all, how are you going to charge, trip, disarm, sunder, and hurt someone without making a full attack? (That was a rhetorical question; don't tell me 'tactical feats'.)

[Previn]

It's interesting that you say that full attacking is more effective at low levels. I was under the impression that full attacks were irrelevant at low levels, and it was only later (when characters start getting multiple attacks) that they become vital. After all, how are you going to charge, trip, disarm, sunder, and hurt someone without making a full attack? (That was a rhetorical question; don't tell me 'tactical feats'.)

Forgive me, I was unclear. I meant 'lower levels' as in the power level of the campaign, not the actual level of the PCs.

A wizard built around blasting would be a 'lower level' example.

[CatharzGodfoot]

It's interesting that you say that full attacking is more effective at low levels. I was under the impression that full attacks were irrelevant at low levels, and it was only later (when characters start getting multiple attacks) that they become vital. After all, how are you going to charge, trip, disarm, sunder, and hurt someone without making a full attack? (That was a rhetorical question; don't tell me 'tactical feats'.)

Forgive me, I was unclear. I meant 'lower levels' as in the power level of the campaign, not the actual level of the PCs.

A wizard built around blasting would be a 'lower level' example.

Ah, that makes more sense.

[Swordslinger]

However, even given just the SRD to build a fighter at 15th level only using feats, I've got the option to move and attack, full attack, spring attack, whirlwind, trip (with improved trip), disarm, sunder, bull rush, overrun, charge, fight defensively, make extra AoOs and Cleave. That's also before choosing the creature for my dodge bonus and deciding what, if any my Combat Expertise and Power Attack are set at.

I'd wonder what you're burning all your feats on if you have all those options. To be really good at any of the side actions like disarming or tripping, you have to get at least 1 feat. Some of them, like spring attack and charging, take more than one feat.

Generally every fighter I've ever seen plays to one gimmick. Whether that gimmick is charging, spring attacking or tripping, it's still pretty much one gimmick.

[erik]

However, even given just the SRD to build a fighter at 15th level only using feats, I've got the option to move and attack, full attack, spring attack, whirlwind, trip (with improved trip), disarm, sunder, bull rush, overrun, charge, fight defensively, make extra AoOs and Cleave. That's also before choosing the creature for my dodge bonus and deciding what, if any my Combat Expertise and Power Attack are set at.

I'd wonder what you're burning all your feats on if you have all those options.

Really? You wonder that? What could he possibly be spending the feats on when he just laid out what he could be spending the feats on.

It's hard to take you seriously Slinger.

Dodge, Expertise, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Improved Sunder, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, Combat Reflexes.

That's 13 feats which is the minimum you'd have as a 15th level fighter. I imagine Previn actually took the effort you did not to count to 13 since it worked out just so.

Really for many of those maneuvers it is just handy to have it as an option, even without the +4 feat bonus, which is why taking even all 13 of those feats is a bit superfluous. Usually either you are fighting a big strong monster, in which case most maneuvers are not called for (either due to being inapplicable or just infeasible), or you are fighting a humanoid in which case maneuvers are pretty easy to accomplish (a large two handed reach weapon in the hand of a +1 BAB strength-primary class can easily disarm that pesky rogue's light weapons, or to sunder that cleric's holy symbol, even without the extra +4).

I'm not saying fighters are good, we know they ain't. But you had plenty of options in combat beyond "I attack" in 3e.


My experience from playing 4e was that combat was boring, marking enemies was especially tedious, the monsters with their solo, elite, and minion designations broke the 4th wall and made it feel like a board game, the class abilities were bland and far too similar, and skill challenges were lame.

4e was 3e with the fun sucked out of it from every pore.

[Swordslinger]

Really? You wonder that? What could he possibly be spending the feats on when he just laid out what he could be spending the feats on.

It's hard to take you seriously Slinger.

Dodge, Expertise, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Improved Sunder, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, Combat Reflexes.

I'm saying I find it hard to believe anybody would ever do that. Not when there's lots better stuff to take like Shock Trooper, Elusive Target, leap attack and other actually useful feats where you actually specialize in a given style.

Seriously Improved Overrun? Improved Bull rush? Dude wtf? I know by mentioning that stuff you're raising a totally hypothetical argument over some purely theoretical character nobody is ever going to make. At that point, it's really hard to take it seriously, because we're no longer talking about real characters people play. Instead we're talking about some poorly optimized character designed solely to win an internet argument.

So whatever dude. If that helps you sleep at night, then I guess go with it.

[Username17]

However, even given just the SRD to build a fighter at 15th level only using feats

I'm saying I find it hard to believe anybody would ever do that. Not when there's lots better stuff to take like Shock Trooper, Elusive Target, leap attack and other actually useful feats where you actually specialize in a given style.

Which of those feats are in the fucking SRD?


-Username17

[ModelCitizen]

I'm saying I find it hard to believe anybody would ever do that. Not when there's lots better stuff to take like Shock Trooper, Elusive Target, leap attack and other actually useful feats where you actually specialize in a given style.

You should probably go read Shock Trooper and Elusive Target.

[Swordslinger]

Which of those feats are in the fucking SRD?

Since when are we limited to the SRD? Just to support the original strawman argument for the theoretical unoptimized character built solely to have a bunch of mediocre options and otherwise suck?

This whole conversation has just gotten ridiculous, because you're no longer even talking about making good characters, you're just talking about making characters solely to showcase tons of options for the sake of doing that.

We all know the uber charger or trip master is better. There's not even any fucking doubt of that. To be even reasonably effective at higher levels as a fighter type, you've got to be a one move specialist. You know it, I know it.

So why the fuck do I really care what a 15th level fighter can do with SRD only feats? Because dude, I'll tell you what he'll do: get totally overshadowed by casters.

Yay, I have a bunch of options. Guess what? None of them are fucking level appropriate.

Would it make everyone happier if 4E offered 10 substandard extra moves you get that nobody would ever want to use? Would having 10 extra options on paper make you feel better?

[Koumei]

For what it's worth, although they have the options, most of those options are pretty worthless. I mean, I hesitate to mention sundering, but... well, yeah. I just did.

Usually, a well-built Fighter in 3E (such as they can be) only has one thing they do really well, and some other things they coincidentally don't suck at. So they take Expertise (1), Improved Trip (Fighter 1), Combat Reflexes (Human), Smackdown (Fighter 2), Dodge (3), Karmic Strike (Fighter 4) and then they sit around lowering their AC so enemies hit them, which provokes, so they get the AoO plus Trip plus free attack for successfully Tripping.

And when a Huge or bigger foe appears (barring them being a Minotaur or 1/2 Dragon or something), or a flyer, they feel sad and rely on plinking it with piddly damage, 4E style.

But when the foe is within the range of Trippable, they just do that every round, and I don't even give a shit what Feats they take at level 6. Presumably they start being jealous of the spells, and wish Fighters Could Have Nice Things, like a prestige class designed for that build that let them keep doing that to bigger and better stuff. For a little while they're still relevant anyway, so it doesn't matter too much.

Note that such a character can't Power Attack yet, can't pounce, whirlwind, dual-wield (well technically he can, but he can't do it and also hit enemies), or any of the rest. He gets kicked in the groin if he ever tries to disarm or grapple, disrupting the attempt. Is it more exciting than a 4E character? Sure! But given basically all "successful" 3E Fighters are built to some specific path of "Be great at one tactic", I wouldn't pretend they're actually bustling with options.

That is the full extent of how far I'm willing to agree with Swordslinger, and even that makes me feel bad.

[Josh_Kablack]

Is it more exciting than a 4E character? Sure!

Well, there was one 4e fighter build that looked marginally more exciting than 3e tripspam, but it was an epic build that involved stuff which got errata nerfed since then. And even with the best case, it just played like a fighting game character in "which way do I start a combo, how many hits can I chain in this combo and is it worth spending my super meter (dailies and action points) now?" Plus, to extend the fighting game metaphor it totally lost to fireball, fireball, uppercut, since it had no ranged capacity and got boned by losing move actions to knockdown.

If that sort of fighting-game -like archetype was the ideal for fighter-types to reach in most games, instead of requiring dumpster diving through 4 books to string together a dozen different specific feat + power + item + class features to achieve at a level rarely played then I woulda liked 4e more. I mean needing to make 8 attacks to put down an average level-appropriate enemy becomes a lot more reasonable when the fighter types have an almost at will 3-hit combo which they can augment up to 10-hits by spending their resources. Then the game becomes about setting up those combos for your side and avoiding the big ones for your enemies - by forcing them to spend their actions on positioning and their resources on other things or decoy targets. When the game becomes about making or preventing big multihit comboes, then the buffer/debuffer and positional control roles also get much bigger.

[Previn]

So why the fuck do I really care what a 15th level fighter can do with SRD only feats? Because dude, I'll tell you what he'll do: get totally overshadowed by casters.

That will always happen.

As a fighter in 3.x you never have a chance to have a meaningful contribution to the story. All you do is 'combat stuff' which isn't limited to 'I attack.'

Which was the entire point I was making. I even specifically said that how effective or ineffective it is is based entirely on the people you're playing with, and power level of the campaign. The reason people insisted for years that fighters were fine was because they played inefficiently and often down right badly.

[Swordslinger]

Which was the entire point I was making. I even specifically said that how effective or ineffective it is is based entirely on the people you're playing with, and power level of the campaign. The reason people insisted for years that fighters were fine was because they played inefficiently and often down right badly.

So your point is that people playing ineffectively have more options because they can pick and choose clearly inferior things to do? Which yeah dude, that's true. A wizard that considers erase and protection from law valid spells to prepare is going to have a wider variety of options than one that just uses the useful combat spells.

Though I don't see how that proves anything.

[Aharon]

On a sidenote, Sunder is usually considered a bad option. In D&D with Standard-WBL, I can see that, but doesn't it become a lot better if Wish-Economy is in play? You don't care about the things you destroy, and it makes the goal of defeating your opponent easier.

[Josh_Kablack]

Well, if you are in post-wish economy, then you only don't care about the wishable gear you destroy, you still totally covet each and every 15,001+ gp item your opponent has, so while sunder gets a little better and becomes viable for high level characters to use against lessor and maybe some cheap medium items, it's still not good against a level-appropriate foes major item and still useless against things like claws.

[Username17]

Sunder is a generally ineffective action, since even if you force your opponent to draw a completely nonmagical dagger that is actually not much of a debuff even at high levels unless your opponent has a bunch of weapon specific abilities. And even then you're usually better off stabbing them in the face.

As to whether Sunder is a disastrous long term option or not, that depends largely on what it takes to repair a magic weapon that has been sundered. The rules don't fucking say. They don't say you can't do it, and they don't list any special costs for it. One reading is that you're repairing a broken masterwork weapon, and thus it costs like a hundred gold pieces and change for materials. Another reading is that you can't do it at all and it's just like you threw the weapon into a sphere of annihilation.

Sunder is such a poorly supported option that key questions like "what can you do with a weapon that has been sundered" are not answered in the core rules. Or anywhere else in the rules. But hey, the designers don't even know how sunder works to begin with. How else do you explain "Eagle Claw Attack"? It's a feat that allows you to sunder with unarmed strikes (unarmed strikes already meet all criteria to use the sunder maneuver).

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

At least Eagle Claw Attack is stronger than Off-Hand Parry.

[hogarth]

As to whether Sunder is a disastrous long term option or not, that depends largely on what it takes to repair a magic weapon that has been sundered. The rules don't fucking say. They don't say you can't do it, and they don't list any special costs for it.

You can also mend a broken magic weapon, suit of armor, or shield if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the XP, half the raw materials, and half the time it would take to craft that item in the first place.

[Winnah]

That is a stupid rule. Only because there is no difference between minor repairs, to fix a loss of item HP and a complete rebuild of something from a fragment of the whole.