How do we get rid of the Fighter

[OgreBattle]

Tome Fighter, Tome Samurai, Tome Barbarian, Tome Soldier, Tome Crusader, Tome Monk, one of those gadgeteer classes

You guys already spent a good amount of effort tackling the 'Fighter question', why not start from one of those as the starting point for your solution?


Say, the Tome Monk. The stances mechanic is really quick to grasp for me, you pick two powers and you get them with a swift action. I can totally see this being the bedrock of developing a versatile class that can do lots of neat fightguy stuff, and also do functional hero stuff too. The tiers are even built in with the "master" and "Grandmaster" levels, granting level appropriate powers like chasing down teleporting guys.


Can someone tell me why the Tome Monk can't be the Fighter you're looking for?

[OgreBattle]

Can I just say that AD&D, as released in 1978-1980, fixed a lot of the problems you guys are having here with Fighters and Wizards?


Because in 1980 Wizards don't have the whole spell list, they each have a personalised weighted-random selection of about 8 spells per spell level and that's it forever (or a lot of levels anyway), and good luck finding the ones you're allowed to learn in the dungeon sometime.

Also, new spells don't go on the Wizard class list. Gary made all these cool new MTP Illusion spells and so we got the fucking Illusionist class to cast most of them. There'll never be more than 150 Wizard spells, and you'll never learn them all, that'd be stupid.

And Fighters can totally sword Gods and Demon lords, who have 90% magic resistance and immunity to all that save-or-lose shit (and save on a 4+ anyway) but only have about 150 hit points (or half of that for the little ones). And if you want to walk somewhere and talk to a God on their home plane you can just do that, like in all the modules. Walk to the Faerie plane? Yes! It's called a "forest", where the elves and pixies live.

And out of combat? Please, in 1980 that's all MTP anyway. Why would anyone ever add restrictive bullshit rules for doing non-combat stuff that you have to MTP anyway, and then not give any of it to Fighters? That's insane, don't do that.



Someone's broken y'all game at some point (~1989 and ~2000), because these "problems" weren't problems thirty-three fucking years ago now, back when someone who played the game and understood probability was writing it (though he did under-power fighters and monsters a bit, by his own account, and was a total dick at times, such is life).

how did wizards contribute to battles against demon lords with 90% spell resistance?

[Maxus]

There's spells that ignore or bypass spell resistance. You can find a way, believe me.

[zugschef]

the best spells don't give a fuck about spell resistance.

[Kaelik]

the best spells don't give a fuck about spell resistance.

Um... not sure that is true in 1e, and of course, his other points where that Wizards don't get to choose their spells, so maybe you just never get those spells.

[Username17]

the best spells don't give a fuck about spell resistance.

Um... not sure that is true in 1e, and of course, his other points where that Wizards don't get to choose their spells, so maybe you just never get those spells.

I really don't know what the fuck that was about. Of course 1st edition Magic Users got to pick spells. You rolled a percentage chance for each spell to see if it was in your spell book. The percentage was based on your Intelligence, and if you had a 15 (about average for an AD&D Magic User), you had a 65% chance of having each particular spell in your spell book. You rolled against each spell in the order you chose until you filled out your maximum known spells (for our hypothetical Int 15 Magic User, that number is 11).

So it's weird, and random, and takes a really long time, but you do in fact choose your spells. There are 30 1st level spells on that list, and you stop on average after you've checked 17. With a 17 Intelligence, you get a 75% chance of knowing each spell you choose to check for and stop when you get to 14 successes - so on average you're done when you've named 19/30 spells.

Now, I can believe that most people house ruled that clusterfuck into anything that wasn't that, because that is incredibly time consuming and stupid. But by the book, you did in fact spend a quite long time choosing spells and rolling dice when making a Magic User. I think I've actually done that for like two characters, with all the rest house ruled into something that took less time.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Right Frank, but the point is that you don't get to choose which spells you succeed on. So if there are like 3 level 5 attack spells that have no SR and can effect demons, then maybe you just don't get any of them.

And frankly, 3 good level 5 no SR spells is probably more than there are for something that ostensibly has 150 spells total across 9 levels.

[Drolyt]

Right Frank, but the point is that you don't get to choose which spells you succeed on. So if there are like 3 level 5 attack spells that have no SR and can effect demons, then maybe you just don't get any of them.

And frankly, 3 good level 5 no SR spells is probably more than there are for something that ostensibly has 150 spells total across 9 levels.

Even if this works (I've never played 1st edition) this is pretty horrible way to fix the fighter.

[Kaelik]

Right Frank, but the point is that you don't get to choose which spells you succeed on. So if there are like 3 level 5 attack spells that have no SR and can effect demons, then maybe you just don't get any of them.

And frankly, 3 good level 5 no SR spells is probably more than there are for something that ostensibly has 150 spells total across 9 levels.

Even if this works (I've never played 1st edition) this is pretty horrible way to fix the fighter.

Oh I agree, the 1e, Wizards sit in a corner half the time and win the fight and make the fighter feel bad half the time shit is shit. Also it prevents people from playing the characters they want, because four fighters or four wizards just instantly lose to rust monster or demon respectively.

And it still doesn't fix the Fighter is Commoner outside of combat thing.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Though now I say that, 4e Fighters started out terrible, and ended up minutely less terrible, so maybe that doesn't work after all. Heh, can you tell Mike Mearls likes Rogues? Monte Cook likes Wizards? What we need is a head designer who actually likes Fighters!

Actually, what we need is a head designer who can take a big-picture view and not assume that his or her personal favorite choices should be rewarded and other choices punished. Sadly, that seems too much to ask.

[Judging__Eagle]

No. You're still wrong. In a level based system, a character at level X has J selections from list N. If you want a different character to have different abilities from list N, you just do that. In point buy, you either have to give people N-Points that can only be used to purchase abilities from list N, or you accept that some non-zero number of players will want to spend their points on abilities on list C instead.

Getting everyone to have J non-combat abilities is by definition easier in a level based system because you can fiat the number of non-combat abilities each character has to have. A point buy system necessarily makes the design goal "everyone has J non-combat abilities" much more difficult to implement.

Point buy systems have various advantages, but getting people to all come to the table with rough parity in combat and non-combat applications is not among them.

-Username17

I was wondering what happens when "basic" parts of the character are how "combat" ability is immediately derived.

In the After Sundown kludged engine I'm working with; I've chopped down the basic Traits down to 4 (Hellenic humors, modern hormones, Quiangic elements), with those four, and Edge providing the fifth 'combat' stat, used to show how much dice a character throws down for Strike, Defense, Grapple, Stance, and Equipment.

Since basic attributes (and taking notes from how AS character creation already works, the amount of points you get for the various parts of character creation are separate, and there's no shifting around of points afterwards) are what this direction that I'm going for hinges on; would that be a relatively safe direction to continue?

[tussock]

Though now I say that, 4e Fighters started out terrible, and ended up minutely less terrible, so maybe that doesn't work after all. Heh, can you tell Mike Mearls likes Rogues? Monte Cook likes Wizards? What we need is a head designer who actually likes Fighters!

Actually, what we need is a head designer who can take a big-picture view and not assume that his or her personal favorite choices should be rewarded and other choices punished. Sadly, that seems too much to ask.

Oh, I wouldn't suggest they're doing it deliberately. It's just that people have massive unconscious biases that influence how they perceive things. Monty's enjoyment of Wizards meant he took all the stops off, because (like some people in this thread) he feels like any mechanic that really challenges a Wizard and their spell use is where someone's pissed in his beer.

Skip Williams said somewhere the AD&D Wizard carried a lot of baggage designed to train Wizard players not to dominate the game. Like one spell at 1st level so you learn restraint before casting, and long recovery on high level slots so you learn to use minimum force. He thought that should've stayed in 3e, but it didn't, because Monte had more fun without it. And now we have the 15-minute adventure.

How did wizards contribute to battles against demon lords with 90% spell resistance?

To some extent, they don't need to, but in a broad sense they can block all it's actions with protections and terrain effects for the two rounds it takes a couple high level warriors to kill them (or one Fighter in UA), and also clear out any mooks (there's a couple fights against 100 Vrock on the way there, only the Wizard or Illusionist can deal with that at all). Also, buffing, and general ability to switch plans if things go badly.

Plus, fibbing, it works more like SR in 1st edition (but not 2nd), based at 11th level, so it was only 55% by 18th (though that's 3 million XP, and you'll probably never get there).

[Aryxbez]

Another Hell yeah for superheros being our martial dudes, though reminds the notion I was trying to bring up in my prior post. I find it odd, that Denners will say in one breath that we want designers that like superheroes, accept superhero characters as examples of the types of capabilities desired with our mid level+ Martial characters, yet say it's "out of genre" or similar. So Lord Mistborn, prefer you address this rather than make claims you've yet to back up, it'd help discussion if nothing else (specifically 2nd quote box he responds to).

To hopefully make clearer, sheer gallery of Superhero comics has easily created room for characters of all Genres, and power level ranges. So it can cover 1-5th games much like it does the 16th-20th, course, don't mix the levels together, won't end well for consistency (Green Arrow will never belong in Silver Surfer's adventures, unless former gets MAJOR overhaul, or yay Gadgeteer/super swag).

Another reminder, to those might be considering conflating low/high level adventure concepts once more, difference with High-Level, is the PC's personal abilities allow them to control/move the plot, opposed to needing fiat conveniences from the DM (even if established part of the setting).

Oh, as for Drolyts Camps, pretty sure Camp 3 isn't worth catering to, most probably wouldn't buy said product over their current bitter homebrew (some in my area pretty much grognards that don't even play the game on any consistent basis,if at all). Though I can see the worth in winning some of them, to increase your market.

You guys already spent a good amount of effort tackling the 'Fighter question', why not start from one of those as the starting point for your solution?

Can someone tell me why the Tome Monk can't be the Fighter you're looking for?

As I recall, it's been stated as it was merely solution for making martial dudes contribute in combat under 3rd editions lacking rules. Stated by Frank, possibly K? that it isn't really a true solution, nor way should go about things going forward. Especially when have benefit of starting from scratch with a new fantasy tabletop RPG.

Though, that is an interesting question, given the apparent popularity of the [Tome] Monk, and its ease of use, seems like that would be both a fine design, and concept metrics to work off of.

Re-ask in regards to [Tome] Soldier, the nature of this class I think was one of my possible irrationality, still hanging on to how Martial-types should be handled, and thus felt to see the reasoning and solve that query. That is, given their nature of (Ex)-based superpowers in the D&D sense, what is wrong with handling a class like this, it even has some supernatural powers, and simply explained as "being that awesome", which is sufficient reasoning for sizable number of people.

Lastly...

[DSMatticus]

Skip Williams said somewhere the AD&D Wizard carried a lot of baggage designed to train Wizard players not to dominate the game. Like one spell at 1st level so you learn restraint before casting, and long recovery on high level slots so you learn to use minimum force. He thought that should've stayed in 3e, but it didn't, because Monte had more fun without it. And now we have the 15-minute adventure.

Why are you talking like getting rid of those things was a mistake? A first level wizard might reasonably be expected to take 10-20 different actions (combat and noncombat) inbetween rest periods, and all of their meaningful abilities use up a spell slot. Giving them a single spell means that for 9-19 of those actions they have nothing to do that anyone gives a shit about at all. And if you expect them to not feel like suckers for being a level 1 wizard, then when they do use that ability it has to win D&D the encounter and maybe the next one too. It's the worst possible combination of "I can make you all feel small in the pants AND I'm going to spend 90% of the time playing videogames because if this were a card game I'm not a deck I'm a single fucking card and I only exist in the one turn I am played."

Also, "training wizard players not to dominate the game" is nonsensical gibberish. Either wizards can or cannot dominate the game at a given level - that is absolutely 100% a balance issue and not at all a player behavior issue. If they can dominate the game at that level , then players who figure that out will just do so and that is the game's fault.

[Drolyt]

Skip Williams said somewhere the AD&D Wizard carried a lot of baggage designed to train Wizard players not to dominate the game. Like one spell at 1st level so you learn restraint before casting, and long recovery on high level slots so you learn to use minimum force. He thought that should've stayed in 3e, but it didn't, because Monte had more fun without it. And now we have the 15-minute adventure.

No, we have the 15 minute adventure because the spell system gives spellcasters phenomenal cosmic power while they still have slots and virtually no ability to do anything once they've run out. Putting a bunch of limits on spells doesn't really help that. What we need is a resource mechanic that allows spellcasters to contribute consistently across encounters but that still makes resource attrition a problem. To be fair to the 3e designers that isn't a trivial task, but that is what you need to do if you want to avoid the 15 minute workday. Which is really a separate problem from the fighter problem.

[tussock]

See bullet points at end for less crap. You know what, spoilered replies for bullshit.

Putting a bunch of limits on spells doesn't really help that.

But it did, factually so, in the past, when everyone was trained to not dump any of their best spells until absolutely needed. And that's how everyone I ever saw or heard of played Wizards in AD&D, even though they are in some ways even more powerful than 3e Wizards if you just port in and go nova (there's more risks than 3e too, but they can be made acceptably small). Psionicists did much the same, miserable as fuck with the PSPs.

That is how they never picked up caster dominance in the playtest, everyone was pre-trained to not try. The old guys at the offices still don't really accept that it happens. I still run into people haven't heard of the healing stick and their Clerics are still stuck casting cures all day, and so suck. There's still people arguing that Monks and Fighters are fine because they've never seen anyone really attack with a Wizard.

I've seen dual-wand wielders dump a thousand points of unresistable touch damage a round all day, but Paizo thinks Rogues with ranged touch sneak attacks is bad because it does about 250 at max level, and they had no idea anyone could ever get near that, because they learnt to play in AD&D where Wizards spend a lot of time not casting their best spells.

I never really clicked with what spellcasters could do until I read you lot. The tomes. Because I started with AD&D too, and so all my casters were delicate and sparing unless things turned bad (when nothing need turn bad in the first place, duh, so obvious now).

I spent years speed-running 3e, getting everyone high movement and just avoiding the fights, leaving the odd thing behind to slow any pursuit using webs and fogs to make escape channels. Grabbing the girl/treasure and getting out. Turns out the casters should have just been winning everything.

Giving them a single spell means that for 9-19 of those actions they have nothing to do that anyone gives a shit about at all.

At first level they have 3 darts per round, for 3d4 total damage at maybe +1 or +2 for Dex. Against monsters with often just 2 hit points.
At higher levels they get more spells and more rounds out of each spell if they pick the right ones, including spells that give you free attacks each round and all sorts.

Either wizards can or cannot dominate the game at a given level - that is absolutely 100% a balance issue and not at all a player behavior issue.

I'm chatting with a guy right now on usenet who, with a 17th level Pathfinder Wizard, spends all his time and spells keeping a party full of martial types alive and in the action. Considers it polite. I've read similar here not long ago. High level D&D can totally do that. DM there is currently pissy because the party is basically untouchable despite the endless prep that goes into trying.

[*] Balance? 4e's balanced, more so than any other edition. It sucks. Some class has to carry some awesome, so that the fight against the Solo Soldier actually ends. It's just that dumping that level of awesome into round one of every fight is bad for the game.

[*] I'm not saying AD&D had a great solution, it was a giant PITA in many ways, but it factually create players who avoided spamming instant victory in every fight, Wizard players who tried to let the at-will classes handle things when they could. Old players like the current game designers still do a great deal of this.

[*] That did in part arise from the (rather negative and awkward) rules. There's probably much better rules which would also make that same thing happen, like some sort of in-combat delays for ultimate power for Wizards, without stealing their actions in early rounds, and letting the at-will classes feel good sometimes.

[*] Something though. Because occasional awesome, when it's needed, is a very good thing for everyone.

[sabs]

If Spells took multiple rounds to cast.. that would make a difference. Alright, so the Melee Characters would basically be there to keep the horrible things occupied until Ultimate Magic! But that's better than not needing to show up at all.

[ishy]

But it did, factually so, in the past, when everyone was trained to not dump any of their best spells until absolutely needed. And that's how everyone I ever saw or heard of played Wizards in AD&D, even though they are in some ways even more powerful than 3e Wizards if you just port in and go nova (there's more risks than 3e too, but they can be made acceptably small). Psionicists did much the same, miserable as fuck with the PSPs.

Why do you think it is called a 5 minute workday?
Because each round in AD&D is 1 minute long.
The 5 minute workday is named after AD&D, because of the huge problem it was in AD&D.

Now sure, you might not have encountered it, but just because you personally did not encounter it, does not mean it is not a problem in the game.

[Drolyt]

[*] Balance? 4e's balanced, more so than any other edition. It sucks. Some class has to carry some awesome, so that the fight against the Solo Soldier actually ends. It's just that dumping that level of awesome into round one of every fight is bad for the game.

I'm not 100% clear on what your point is here, but balance doesn't necessarily result in 4e. Your problem seems to be with the 4e resource mechanic, which is indeed horrible.

[*] I'm not saying AD&D had a great solution, it was a giant PITA in many ways, but it factually create players who avoided spamming instant victory in every fight, Wizard players who tried to let the at-will classes handle things when they could. Old players like the current game designers still do a great deal of this.

I'm still not clear on how it is supposed to do this, but even if it did it does so in a terribad way. It is a good thing for wizards to actually cast spells most rounds, and besides that by your own account wizards still have I Win buttons, they just spread them out more.

[*] That did in part arise from the (rather negative and awkward) rules. There's probably much better rules which would also make that same thing happen, like some sort of in-combat delays for ultimate power for Wizards, without stealing their actions in early rounds, and letting the at-will classes feel good sometimes.

Or you could just let fighters do interesting things and make sure wizards can't do game-breaking things?

[*] Something though. Because occasional awesome, when it's needed, is a very good thing for everyone.

I'm not sure I agree with this. It gives nonspellcasters a purpose, but that purpose becomes "protect the wizard/codzilla so they can cast the awesome spell and win the game."

If Spells took multiple rounds to cast.. that would make a difference. Alright, so the Melee Characters would basically be there to keep the horrible things occupied until Ultimate Magic! But that's better than not needing to show up at all.

I don't think this can work. If spells take multiple rounds to cast fights have to last longer than they do in (pre 4e) D&D, but if that happens rounds have better be shorter in real time than in D&D. Even if you could pull that off making fighters contribute meaningfully is a much better solution.

[Sigil]

spells taking multiple rounds to cast could only work in a Dr Who style game where NO ONE plays the Wizard, or the group as a whole plays the wizard choosing something for the wizard to do each turn in addition to your characters turn, where the whole point of the game actually is protect the wizard.

That could be interesting, actually, but it isn't a standard table top set up.

[fectin]

spells taking multiple rounds to cast could only work in a Dr Who style game where NO ONE plays the Wizard, or the group as a whole plays the wizard choosing something for the wizard to do each turn in addition to your characters turn, where the whole point of the game actually is protect the wizard.

That could be interesting, actually, but it isn't a standard table top set up.

Put it this way then: would Scrapped Princess make a good campaign?

[Drolyt]

Scrapped Princess

Explain.

[Mistborn]

If Spells took multiple rounds to cast.. that would make a difference. Alright, so the Melee Characters would basically be there to keep the horrible things occupied until Ultimate Magic! But that's better than not needing to show up at all.

Lay off the MMOs, there is no tanking in D&D.

[virgil]

If Spells took multiple rounds to cast.. that would make a difference. Alright, so the Melee Characters would basically be there to keep the horrible things occupied until Ultimate Magic! But that's better than not needing to show up at all.

Lay off the MMOs, there is no tanking in D&D.

Get off the wrong train, because there is tanking in D&D. It's just not a low-hanging fruit or a universally available option.

[zugschef]

Get off the wrong train, because there is tanking in D&D. It's just not a low-hanging fruit or a universally available option.

no there really isn't something like "tanking" in the mmo type of sense. that's because humans control all the creatures. all this's before you factor in that it's pretty retarded to try to become the main target in every single fight in dnd.