| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1LawolfJul 25, 2014 11:31:23 | So, there is a lot of talk about how great it would be to have a complex fighter option available, but there isn't a whole lot of talk about what a complex fighter actually is. So lets brainstorm what actually makes a "complex" fighter.
What makes a class complex? Is it a resource mechanic? A small list of codified maneuvers? The ability to make meaningful and interesting choices on a round by round basis?
Would such a class be possible as a fighter subclass, or would we need a brand new base class?
What abilities would such a warrior have? Should they primarily be mundane abilities like knocking enemies prone or pushing them on a hit? Should they be exceptional abilities that cannot be replicated with improvisation? Both? Neither?
How frequently should their special abilities be usable? At will? Per encounter? Five per short rest? Five per day? Something else entirely?
What resource mechanic should such a class use? How is this resource gained? How is it spent? Should it increase with level?
Should such a warrior gain obviously supernatural capabilities at higher levels? If so, what level?
How tough should such a warrior be compared to a fighter? A barbarian? A Paladin? A rogue? A wizard?
How much damage should such a warrior deal compared to a fighter? A barbarian? A paladin? A rogue? A wizard?
How much utility should such a warrior provide compared to a fighter? A barbarian? A paladin? A rogue? A wizard? |
| #2ParaxisJul 25, 2014 12:00:54 | I would start by looking at other systems close to D&D like Iron Heroes and 13th Age. In Iron Heroes you have resource points you gain by doing various things like attacking, getting hit, or aiming then you spend those resource points to do cool encounter like powers. In 13th Age you have flexible attacks that depending on the roll of the die you get to pick from some interesting options you have picked. I was not a fan of Book of Nine swords for 3e but it also could be mined for ideas. |
| #3SaelornJul 25, 2014 12:05:09 | If I had to pick a definition, then I would go for meaningful choices every round. That doesn't mean you need to have special maneuvers every round, of course; you could have one maneuver, once per short rest, and you would still have a meaningful choice of whether or not to use it in a given round. Of course, by that definition, we've already succeeded.
Honestly, the default fighter in the book is already a bit too complex for my tastes, adding in so many short-rest powers on top of the usual rigamarole of weapons and damage types and resistances and movement and positioning and all that jazz.
I'm curious to see what others would say, though. |
| #4Mephi1234Jul 25, 2014 12:06:29 |
|
| #5GuntharJul 25, 2014 12:13:26 | I want Fighters to have tactical maneuvers he can call on, and the tools to actually defend his allies. If the Table of Contents is any indication though, Mearls and Co. are utterly failing to give us much of anything except maybe the stupidly inane disarm/trip/push sub-optimal options. |
| #6OrzelJul 25, 2014 12:34:25 | For Complexity in Class I use 4 forms of Complexity. _ Active Resource Management Passive Ascept Memory (remembering bonuses) In the Moment Active Options (options at the time of problem solving) In Character Metagame (options before reaching the problem.) _ The fighter traditionally has only alot of PAM, a little MAO, and almost none our the rest. 4e gave it more PAM and some RM. 54 toned down the RM and PAM in the simple fighter. The battle master is promised to have more. |
| #7edwin_suJul 25, 2014 12:42:23 | The chance is big that we will see a fighter subclass based on the supriority dice like in the playtest.
|
| #8MiladoonJul 25, 2014 12:44:42 | Initial reactions
Come up with an entirely new class. I do not think a subclass will paficy the complex fighter fanbase
Besides that, there are three other avenues:
Reskin a martial halfcaster.
Convert ToB classes.
Rewrite Fighting Styles to have fluff, grant weapon proficiency, and have three AEDesque exploits
Perhaps actually playing the subclass Battlemaster, or whatever they end up calling it, will be good enough.
|
| #9EerongalJul 25, 2014 12:45:07 |
|
| (Reply to #9)Ashrym |
|
| #11EerongalJul 25, 2014 12:58:03 |
|
| #12ClockworkNecktieJul 25, 2014 13:07:09 | First off, let's take stock of what we actually have: the current fighter will have a weaponmaster subclass who knows a few maneuvers at third level, and slowly learns more as he levels up. The maneuvers use a point system (expertise dice) that recharges with a short rest. The actual maneuvers probably resemble what we've seen in various playtests: stuff like trip, disarm, taunt, hit-and-run, and so on. You can also probably combine multiple maneuvers into a single turn (e.g., spend one expertise die to tumble in and avoid attacks of opportunity, then spend another to trip your opponent). On top of that, you have feats that let you do interesting things like smash a chair over someone's head and then grapple them as a bonus action.
Honestly, this works for me as a baseline of complexity.
Now, going back to the abstract, a more "complex" fighter is simply one who has more viable options in combat. There are other things people want for warrior classes, like supernatural abilities and out-of-combat utility, but IMHO those are separate questions.
It's pretty easy to add more options in combat. The trick is that without careful resource limitations, people will end up spamming the most powerful move they have, which defeats the purpose of adding more options to begin with. To avoid this, you need to limit those more powerful maneuvers, either by making them use some limited resource or by making them conditional. (So 13th Age made them conditional by saying you could only use them on, say, an odd attack roll. 4e made them resource-limited as encounter or daily powers.) Of these two options, conditionality is usually less conducive to advanced tactical thinking, because on any given turn you still have very limited options. If you happened to roll odd, you get to use your awesome power; if not, you have to use something else. So a limited resource is probably best.
Now, what kind of limitation works best? If we're interested in creating more tactical combat, the obvious answer is a limitation tied to the tactical "scene," the encounter. Daily powers do make you think carefully, but you're actually considering things on a broader, more "strategic" level rather than on an immediate "tactical" level. So I'd say encounter powers are the way to go. (This is aside from the whole simulationist concern about martial daily powers not making sense.) Probably my favorite resource, though, would be a system that fully recharges every encounter but also allows you to spend actions in combat to recharge them, because this adds a bit more depth to the tactical aspect of resource-management. (Lawolf's custom classes have always done a great job of this if I recall correctly.)
Could this work as a fighter subclass? Probably not if you're going for anything more complex than the weaponmaster subclass we'll see in the PHB. Anything more intense will require sacrificing some of the fighter's core abilities, like the 3rd and 4th attack.
Finally, should a warrior's mundane abilities be replicable with improvisation? The answer, IMHO, is yes, but they should cost more actions and possibly be less likely to succeed. The current system is a decent example IMHO: you can trip someone as an action with no special class abilities, but if you want to get in an attack that same turn, you need a maneuver or feat. |
| #13DemoMonkeyJul 25, 2014 13:09:58 | It would be better if you had to solve a quadratic equation, learn to speak Sanskrit, teach the proper use of possessive apostrophes to marmots, and calculate how to make geometrically perfect yorkshire pudding using only the Large Hadron Collider before every melee attack. Now THAT would be a Complex fighter! |
| #14ChrisCarlsonJul 25, 2014 13:38:48 | As soon as I get my hands of the PHB I'll let you know. And should that fall short, I'm certain the DMG, a few months later, will have what you are looking for. |
| #15OrzelJul 25, 2014 13:56:42 | Personal one type of complex I would love that many would ABSOLUTELY HATE is a whole list of damage, attack, and speed bonused and effects which could be applied to individual attacks. Collected just like a wizard. +5 damage if the target is flying. Advantage to attack if they are holding a shield. A bonus knockdown if the target is bipedal. All on a spontaneous "stanima point" system. With levels. But only .1% of D&D fans would like it. |
| #16OrwellianHaggisJul 25, 2014 13:57:37 | Could you create a fighter with expendable slots, like the wizard's spell slots?
Cantrips might equate to mundane attacks for the complex fighter, available at-will: push/pull, trip, disarm. Then increasingly powerful/useful abilities could equate to increasingly high spell slots. I could have a think on what kind of abilities to put in place, but I'm not a maths head.
Plus, as someone mentioned in another thread (I think), the complex fighter could choose which damage type (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) to deal with any given attack... as long as it made sense (no piercing with a club, for example). |
| (Reply to #16)Overpromises | Of the two rumored fighter subclasses, one is described pretty well in ClockworkNecktie’s post and the other can cast wizard abjuration and evocation spells of up to 4th level.
I also agree with him that anything much more complicated than these two would probably need to be a different class for balance reasons. It wouldn’t be very fair to master time and space but still be almost as good at applying dumb-as-rocks beatdown as a Champion Fighter.
Also, how complicated is “complicated enough”? There will be four other classes—barbarian, monk, paladin, and ranger—that trade some of the fighter’s raw power for greater complexity. Are those too simple? Not fighter-y enough? |
| #18SifakaJul 25, 2014 14:46:15 | I would throw the rogue into this conversation as well. With the new rules on sneak attack damage you are going to get it most of the time. A rogue sub-class might be the dex based complex fighter... we will have to wait until we see the PHB to know for sure. |
| #19sleypyJul 25, 2014 15:59:01 |
|
| (Reply to #41)Overpromises |
|
| #43Emerikol.Jul 26, 2014 9:36:50 | Another question is how many players would like a complex option without dissociative mechanics. If you don't believe in them fine just ignore this post please and don't start something. Just assume there are people who know what they are and identify them the same as many but want more complexity as one of their fighter options. Personally I would never play it but I could tolerate it in my game for another player if it was not dissociative and if there existed a simple option as well.
One way to do that would be a manuever system that is encounter based and generally short term stamina based. Then if you wanted to add in some highly exotic wuxia like manuevers it wouldn't matter so long as other manuevers existed that weren't. If you used points you could have one, two, and three point manuevers.
Not to say it is going to make or break the game for me if there is a more spell slot like class so long as the simple one exists. Just saying there might be another target group "in between" the two extremes if you will. |
| (Reply to #43)Overpromises |
|
| #45OrzelJul 26, 2014 9:49:25 | Daily powers is not bad. The issue is HOW you implement them.
Here is a question.
What if Fighter Powers used a stamina points. You got 1d6+Con stamina points per fighter level. Fighter maneuvers would use stamina points spontaneously and completely restore after long rests. Action Surge and Second Wind would be two base maneuvers. A short rest would grant a tiny bit of stamina. Optional rules would cause fighters to be tired if they have 0 stamina. Or even go negative in stamina for HP damage. |
| #46LawolfJul 26, 2014 10:14:59 |
|
| #47The_JesterJul 26, 2014 10:18:47 | At this point a single definition for a complex fighter is pretty hard, as there's such a range.
For some people, the 3e fighter with it's endless feats is complex, requiring a lot of choices and managing things each round, such as power attacking or remembering to cleave. For others, the 3e fighter is simple not having any resources to manage and the 4e fighter is complex having powers that need managed over both the encounter and adventuring day. For others, the 4e fighter is simple being able to use all their powers all the time, and not having a something like Warcraft's Rage mechanic requiring the fighter to deal and take damage to unlock advanced powers over the course of an encounter.
A class that hits all possible ranges of complexity is likely impossible. But a maneuver fighter will boost complexity, especially paired with some feats that add options and a tactical combat module that will likely boost round-by-round options for all characters. A weaponmaster fighter that takes the feat that gives superiority dice will likely have a lots choices each round and lots of dice to burn between short rests. |
| (Reply to #46)Overpromises |
|
| #49JohnLynchJul 26, 2014 10:44:43 | Assuming the battle master is like the playtest one and maneuvers cost superiority dice, all that's missing for me is to use at Will powers. For this I propose a fighting style: You know 2 Maneuvres. You can give up one of your attacks on your turn to use a maneuver without expending any superiority dice. If the roll would call for a superiority dice to be rolled, treat it as if you had rolled a 0. Every 5 levels you can replace a maneuver you know with another one.
This would get some use at level 2 with action surge, but really come into it's own at level 5. Until then you could (hopefully) choose Maneuvres that don't rely on an attack to activate hence the ability to swap out a maneuver at that level. There could be some synergy with two-weapon fighting but I'm not sure if that would be cheesy or not (sacrificing 6.5 points of damage and a bonus action for an atwill maneuver).
if you think the fighting style seems overpowered I present you this: I take the two weapon fighting maneuver and (assuming strength 16) I can deal 12 damage on average. Or I take this fighting style and deal 6.5 damage and a free maneuver. Or in terms of DPR against AC 15, I take the archery maneuver and I deal 5.25 DPR and remain at range or I take this maneuver and I deal 3.9 DPR and I get a free maneuver but must be in Melee.
to me that seems balanced and I'd be interested to know what others think.
As for the other side of the coin for a simple fighter, that's something I've been struggling with. How are these alternate mechanics: Second Wind: You gain double fighter level in bonus HP
The second wind replacement seems fair as it doesn't cost an action so you deal more damage. The action surge replacement could be Mathed out to check it's balance. The indomitable ability is situationally very useful, so this seemed a fair compromise but may be too good. |
| (Reply to #43)mestewart3 |
|
| #51RastapopoulosJul 26, 2014 12:43:55 |
|
| #52ClockworkNecktieJul 26, 2014 12:52:42 | Emerikol - if you're okay with superiority dice that recharge on a short rest as a sort of stamina pool, the Battlemaster might be workable. You'd probably have to switch various maneuvers around so you choose to use them before your attack roll, and stuff like that, but I could see it working.
|
| #53The_JesterJul 26, 2014 15:14:16 |
|
| #54GhostStepperJul 26, 2014 15:35:14 |
|
| #55Emerikol.Jul 26, 2014 15:43:17 |
|
| #56edwin_suJul 26, 2014 16:24:29 |
|
| (Reply to #54)Ashrym |
|
| (Reply to #57)Overpromises |
|
| (Reply to #58)Marandahir |
|
| #60SaelornJul 27, 2014 12:47:52 |
|
| #61JohnLynchJul 26, 2014 21:11:11 |
|
| #62VikingkingqJul 27, 2014 4:38:27 | I don't think complexity can be boiled down to a target number of maneuvers or options such that you can draw a line and say above this number and a class is complex, or below this number and it's simple. Likewise, I don't think complexity and nova are the same thing.
I do think there's an enormous potential to build a complex Fighter through the Maneuver system that hasn't yet been tapped:
Resource Management - having a resource pool that you have to use up to power your Maneuvers creates interesting choices about executing one big hit vs. having your maneuvers constantly at hand, and different resource management systems create different kinds of choices. For example, in earlier editions of the playtest, Maneuver resources refreshed at the start of your turn, which enabled you to use the Maneuvers every turn (which makes them more central to the Fighter's playstyle) while making you weigh spending all of your dice now to have a big effect vs. holding back a few dice to use during the enemy's turn. A more encounter-based refresh setup now makes you consider the big effect vs. holding back across multiple opponents, although you lose the centrality of the Maneuvers when you can't use them every turn. However, I think there's more that could be done here: you can create depth vs. breadth choices by allowing multiple dice to be used to power up one Maneuver for an added effect vs. using multiple Maneuvers on the same attack or saving the dice for later. Likewise, you can intensify the scarcity issue by allowing the player to "burn" a dice so that it doesn't refresh normally until time has passed for an added effect, creating a choice between consistency and nova.
Maneuvers - I'm a huge fan of Maneuvers, in that they allow the Fighter to do more than just a basic attack without sacrificing your expected contribution to the fight. However, I think there's more that can be done with Maneuvers: combinations, like the spell combinations in Dragon Age (Greasefire, Shattering, etc.) or the venerable Grease + Choking Cloud combination in D&D, encourages players to experiment with Maneuvers in new ways. Utility maneuvers that don't involve hitting people would also be nice; I've often thought that destroying/using the environment would be a good nice - building off the traditional smashing open doors, I could see maneuvers that smashed open floors or ceilings or walls, or that allowed you to use rubble to construct fortifications/difficult terrain or a bridge over a gap, as something that had both interesting combat potential (deny the enemy space to use, set up ambushes or escapes) and spices up a dungeon crawl. Most importantly, there's a need for mid- and end-game maneuvers.
This last point is important enough to discuss in its own paragraph. When I say mid- to end-game, I'm not talking about scaling damage or nova. I'm talking about the range of things the player can do. Let's look at the other classes:
Cleric: in the beginning, a Hold Person or Cure Wounds can be a clutch play, potentially winning an encounter. At 5th level, you progress to bringing someone back to life. 10th level, you can call on your god directly to do *anything*. That's not just scaling healing, that's a new category of action that really differentiates a high-level cleric from a low-level Cleric, and from other classes. Rogue: in the beginning, Cunning Action practically defines what makes a rogue a rogue; as you level up, you gain advantages on all kinds of checks; at 20th level, you can manufacture natural 20s out of thin air. Again, not just scaling but new areas of expertise that feel quite different from one another. Wizards: probably the clearest case. In the beginning, Burning Hands or Sleep are potentially decisive; at 5th level, Invisibility, Fly, or Major Image give you entirely new capacities you didn't have before, aside from the added power of Fireball or Lightning Bolt. And everyone knows about the end-game craziness that is Teleport, Wish, Time Stop, etc.
So for me, end-game maneuvers are about the Fighter gaining access to new kinds of things they can do. At early levels, Tripping or Disarming an Ogre can be huge, the Fighter's equivalent to Hold Person or Sleep. But the question is...what kind of things is a 10th level Fighter doing, what kinds of solutions can they provide, that a 5th level can't? Or a 15th vs. a 10th? Or a 20th?
|
| #63UchawiJul 27, 2014 4:54:04 | Overall, I would like a more diverse tool set for martial characters. So if you look at hybrids as the closest example, they have at-wills and slash and hack ability, but they also have a utility chest to enchance those attacks, or replace them with something different. So in that respect, non-hybrid martial characters should have a mechanism to increase the tools at their disposal. That means more at-will abilities as they level, some one shot encounter/daily powers, and some constant powers that effect any ability in their tool set to compete with spells that last multiple hours. As part of that scaling should be considered just like spells.
So you may end up with a martial character with abilities they learn that are very situational, and only come into play a few times per day, even if they are at-will. But they will have those tools when they need them, versus becoming so specialized to be good at something, that it all goes to hell, when the DM changes the theme/style of the campaign. A good comparison is the effort to make the ranger specialized when considering favored enemies, but still making them viable overall for general combat and outside of combat. |
| #64SaelornJul 27, 2014 12:58:46 |
|