• Welcome to The Campaign Builder's Guild.
 

The (un)official D&D Next Playtest thread

Started by sparkletwist, May 24, 2012, 06:17:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sparkletwist

Quote from: HippopotamusDundeeJust a random thought - would this achieve a better balance?
Not really. It would make the spellcasters more dependent on having protection from the mundane classes... but I don't think it's a good solution to even more deeply entrench the Fighter's role of "meatshield for the Wizard." That's not to say that protection isn't a useful and valuable niche for the party, but the thing about being the tank is that it's passive-- you're just the guy the monsters beat up on so they don't beat up on the fragile party members that are actually doing things. You, the tank, don't get to do much of anything. Out of combat, the lower HP and longer casting times of the Wizard don't matter at all, and that's where the Fighter really needs more flexibility and capability.  I think part of the problem is that somehow "being good at doing things" sort of became a protected niche for the Rogue, where it should really just be something all mundane classes get to help to put them on par with the versatility of casters.

Steerpike

This is why I think high-level fighters should have strongholds and armies and such.  This should be how it works at high levels:

Wizard: I have Limited Wish, Control Weather, TIme Stop, and Teleportation Circle prepped.  I control space and frikkin time.

Cleric: I have True Resurrection, Mass Heal, Holy Word, and Implosion prepped.  I control frikkin life and death.

Fighter: I can chop things in two with my sword.  Also, these guys (gestures to the army of 1000 spearmen and archers behind him).

sparkletwist

I see what you're getting at, but I think your comparison breaks down even in your own words. You're comparing the guys who control "space and time and life and death" with the guy who... has 1000 people who are good at killing things with mundane weapons. That's great if you need a lot of things stabbed in a hurry, but it really just entrenches the Fighter's one niche and doesn't give him that much additional utility.

I'll grant that it might help with knowledge-type stuff if he can ask his men if they know anything, and does give a measure of battlefield control... but it kind of strains verisimilitude that the Fighter's troupe could follow him into a cramped dungeon, though, while meanwhile the Wizard can cast legend lore or black tentacles wherever he needs to. I have no idea at all what the "1000 mundane badasses" are supposed to do, meanwhile, against an ethereal foe or with a wall of force or one of the numerous other problems that the Fighter cannot solve no matter how many of him there are.

Steerpike

#108
I wouldn't say army-leading should be the fighter's only shtick, but I think it would help; and, really, is dungeon-delving that common an adventuring occupation at the very high levels?  And, of course, in the cramped dungeon, the fighter could always bring along his trusty lieutenants/cohorts, his elite knights or whatnot.  A lot of high-level adventures can involve things like large invading armies, huge monsters, planar incursions, and other "epic" stuff where armies could be involved.  Giving the fighter the option of becoming a military leader and working out some proper mass combat mechanics would definitely give fighters a major niche, and there's plenty of precedent for this sort of thing being a significant part of D&D (not to mention tremendous precedent in fiction and history for fighter-types of repute leading armies).

I'm totally fine with giving more skills to the fighter, but I still see the rogue as being the "skills guy," at least when it comes to thieving stuff.  Like, if the fighter can now be as stealthy as the rogue, pick locks as well as the rogue, find and disable traps as well as the rogue, and pick pockets as well as the rogue, there's just not that left that makes the rogue unique.  Sneak attacks, I guess.  Like, maybe the fighter's skillset should revolve around making weapons or tactics or riding horses or something, in the same way that the wizard's skillset revolves around arcane knowledge and spellcraft, or the ranger's around woodcraft and tracking.

EDIT: I'd also argue that having armies and a stronghold gives the fighter a lot of "utility."  With his forces, the fighter can effectively accomplish several goals simultaneously.  Soldiers can take objectives, perform scouting and reconaissance, set traps for enemies, raid enemy villages, go on sneak attacks, etc - a whole host of interesting military manuevers beyond just fighting pitched battles.  A stronghold would not only form a great headquarters for the party, it could be a superb plot generator - refugees could seek succour there, the fighter might be called upon to arbitrate disputes, you could have murder mysteries, problems with supplies, sieges, hidden tunnels, all sorts of fun.  While the spellcasters produce their crazy effects the fighter's player would be making rolls for military engagements, leadership, thinking up inspiring speeches, leading troops on the field, conducting diplomacy, deciding what to do with enemy hostages - all manner of stuff.

sparkletwist

#109
Quote from: Steerpikeis dungeon-delving that common an adventuring occupation at the very high levels?
Ok, well, delving into wherever they're going. Actually, the Fighter can't cast overland flight or plane shift or whatever to get to the "high level adventure location," either, so that's something else he can't do.

Quote from: SteerpikeGiving the fighter the option of becoming a military leader and working out some proper mass combat mechanics would definitely give fighters a major niche
Eh. When it comes right down to it, the ability is "commanding 1000 guys," or whatever. How is that even a class feature? Higher level characters are practically rolling in money, so why can't any of them just hire these guys?

And if the answer is "he's better at commanding them" then you have to explain how the Fighter is better at "making people like him and want to follow him" than some random Sorcerer-- who, in addition to all the stuff that arcane spellcasting can do that the Fighter just can't-- probably has a Charisma in the 20's by now. Because, you know, that's what Charisma actually is for, even before it was the stat that Sorcerers used for casting.

Quote from: SteerpikeI still see the rogue as being the "skills guy," at least when it comes to thieving stuff.
I agree with you about the "thieving stuff" skills, but the problem is that the Rogue is regarded as "the guy who gets to have skills" which puts a big cramp on the Fighter (and every other mundane class's) noncombat effectiveness. Like, I don't see it infringing on the Rogue's niche at all to give the Fighter more skill points in general and maybe let him get good at Perception, UMD, and other useful skills. Maybe some way to make class skills like Intimidate more useful by letting him tie them to Str instead of random stats he probably dumped, too.

Edit to reply to your edit:
Quote from: SteerpikeA stronghold would not only form a great headquarters for the party, it could be a superb plot generator - refugees could seek succour there, the fighter might be called upon to arbitrate disputes, you could have murder mysteries, problems with supplies, sieges, hidden tunnels, all sorts of fun.
While this is true, having a stronghold seems to be a function of "having means" rater than "being a fighter." Like I said above, at the higher levels, everyone has money, so there has to be some reason why the Fighter would be uniquely qualified to receive this place.

For that matter, the high level Wizard (or Witch, or whatever) can cast create demiplane. How is that not an even more awesome headquarters for the party?

Steerpike

#110
Quote from: sparkletwistActually, the Fighter can't cast overland flight or plane shift or whatever to get to the "high level adventure location," either, so that's something else he can't do.

Well, yeah, although Plane Shift brings like 8 people with you.  Gate stays open for quite awhile too.

Quote from: sparkletwistEh. When it comes right down to it, the ability is "commanding 1000 guys," or whatever. How is that even a class feature? Higher level characters are practically rolling in money, so why can't any of them just hire these guys?

And if the answer is "he's better at commanding them" then you have to explain how the Fighter is better at "making people like him and want to follow him" than some random Sorcerer-- who, in addition to all the stuff that arcane spellcasting can do that the Fighter just can't-- probably has a Charisma in the 20's by now. Because, you know, that's what Charisma actually is for, even before it was the stat that Sorcerers used for casting.

There're two solutions here.  One is that, well, fighters need Charisma now, instead of just Strength and Con; hardly revolutionary, as many classes (Rangers, Paladins, Bards, even the Rogue) have several stats they need.  The other would be that a fighter's feats of arms provide leadership bonuses of some kind.  The next would be a tactics and army-building skill-set and a set of class abilities that other classes wouldn't have access to, or wouldn't be given as many advantages in.  So, yes, anyone can go hire some mercenaries, but the fighter inspires them, commands them well, would give them bonuses when accomplishing certain tasks, etc.  There would be a Tactics skill of some kind that the fighter makes to aid his troops - mechanics like that.  Plus you could give leadership/command feats as bonus feat options.

Quote from: sparkletwistLike, I don't see it infringing on the Rogue's niche at all to give the Fighter more skill points in general and maybe let him get good at Perception, UMD, and other useful skills. Maybe some way to make class skills like Intimidate more useful by letting him tie them to Str instead of random stats he probably dumped, too.

I'd be fine with boosting the fighter's skill points up to 4+Int or something, for example.  Sure, why not.

Quote from: sparkletwistWhile this is true, having a stronghold seems to be a function of "having means" rater than "being a fighter." Like I said above, at the higher levels, everyone has money, so there has to be some reason why the Fighter would be uniquely qualified to receive this place.

Sure anyone could buy it, but the fighter might be especially capable of operating and maintaining it, using it to train martial troops, knowledgeable of how to defend it in a siege, etc.  A castle's not just a big house, after all, it's a militrary installation.  The fighter is essentially a military kind of character in the way that the wizard is essentially a scholarly kind of character, the cleric is essentially ecclasiastical, the rogue is essentially criminal, etc, so to me it makes sense that a high-level fighter would do things high-up military people and warriors of renown tend to do, i.e. lead armies and rule castles.  It just seems like a nice alternative to saying "OK FIGHTERS ARE MAGIC NOW," which rubs me the wrong way.  D&D is not Exalted.

Quote from: sparkletwistFor that matter, the high level Wizard (or Witch, or whatever) can cast create demiplane. How is that not an even more awesome headquarters for the party?

Well, that's true, at super high levels that's totally a possibility.  Although it might be less useful for other reasons, like as a strategic bastion that controls an area of territory, for example.

EDIT: This style of high-level play could easily be extrapolated to the other classes to a certain degree - for example a high-level Rogue might be given abilities that help with the running of a thieves' guild, the high-level Cleric might be given abilities that help with the running of a temple or cathedral, the mage an academy of magic, the paladin an order of holy knights, etc.  Or not, I don't know.  It would certainly impart a different feel to high level play than the sort of gonzo/superhero quality that it is usually associated with.

sparkletwist

Quote from: SteerpikeWell, yeah, although Plane Shift brings like 8 people with you.  Gate stays open for quite awhile too.
That lets the Fighter be brought along, but it doesn't actually let the Fighter independently solve any new problems.

Quote from: SteerpikeOne is that, well, fighters need Charisma now
No, taking a class that already has severe problems and adding MAD to it is hardly a solution.

Quote from: SteerpikeThe other would be that a fighter's feats of arms provide leadership bonuses of some kind.  The next would be a tactics and army-building skill-set and a set of class abilities that other classes wouldn't have access to, or wouldn't be given as many advantages in.  So, yes, anyone can go hire some mercenaries, but the fighter inspires them, commands them well, would give them bonuses when accomplishing certain tasks, etc.
All that really does is make the mundane guys the Fighter can hire better than the mundane guys that any other class can hire. It still does nothing to address the issue that "1000 mundane guys good at stabbing people" simply can't handle a lot of high level threats, while meanwhile spellcasters have all kinds of means at their disposal beyond just "hiring some guys." I mean, for one thing, Wizards have all the summon monster and planar binding and whatever spells, so they could just conjure up a creature to do whatever they needed done without having to bother hiring anyone anyway.

Quote from: SteerpikeThe fighter is essentially a military kind of character in the way that the wizard is essentially a scholarly kind of character, the cleric is essentially ecclasiatical, the rogue is essentially criminal, etc, so to me it makes sense that a high-level fighter would do things high-up military people and warriors of renown tend to do, i.e. lead armies and rule castles.
You're right, and this is essentially more a problem with the D&D system and setting conceits. It is kind of handwaved in the major settings, I think (with Eberron being a possible major exception) but the fact is that D&D magic is so gonzo that D&D-style social organization often couldn't really exist.

Steerpike

#112
Quote from: sparkletwistYou're right, and this is essentially more a problem with the D&D system and setting conceits. It is kind of handwaved in the major settings, I think (with Eberron being a possible major exception) but the fact is that D&D magic is so gonzo that D&D-style social organization often couldn't really exist.

Perhaps this is a good argument for reigning in gonzo magic, at least just a bit.  Personally I either go for a super-gonzo setting (Planescape) or I tend to rule that high-level casters are extraordinarily rare.

Quote from: sparkletwistIt still does nothing to address the issue that "1000 mundane guys good at stabbing people" simply can't handle a lot of high level threats, while meanwhile spellcasters have all kinds of means at their disposal beyond just "hiring some guys." I mean, for one thing, Wizards have all the summon monster and planar binding and whatever spells, so they could just conjure up a creature to do whatever they needed done without having to bother hiring anyone anyway.

Can a high-level demon or elemental (or whatever) fight entire armies (well, some of them maybe, but not most...)?  Can it hold a garrison, manning all of the battlements at once?  Can it occupy a large territory for an extended period?  Can it patrol borders?  Can it gather information from the locals without freaking them out so badly they run in terror?  Can it protect a village from a mass attack?  It might be able to help do some of these things, but there are lots of things that happen in epic fantasy that require manpower, or that large numbers of trained troops are the best solution for.  Gandalf is great when you run into a Balrog but at Helm's Deep you need Theoden and his men, or Eomer and his Rohirrim, to keep the people of Rohan safe against 10000 Uruk-Hai.  Gandalf might be useful against the Nazgul but you need Faramir and his scouts to keep the borders of Gondor secure from the constant depredations of Mordor.

Quote from: sparkletwistNo, taking a class that already has severe problems and adding MAD to it is hardly a solution.

Maybe not, but I'm sure there are other ways of handling it, and I don't see why some degree of multiple attribute dependency is really that big of a problem, especially if you modify character generation procedure in light of it.

EDIT: I merely raise the stronghold/army angle as one possibility.  I certainly don't think it's the only way to make a high-level fighter interesting.  I'm also enjoying how this thread is sort of becoming a general brainstorm for tweaking/improving D&D :P.

sparkletwist

Quote from: SteerpikePerhaps this is a good argument for reigning in gonzo magic, at least just a bit.
I agree. When spellcasters can do "basically everything" it becomes rather difficult to carve out a niche for everyone else. That said, I still do contend that Fighters do need a power-up that takes them beyond the realm of the merely mundane when they reach high level-- something on the order of ancient myths, wuxia, or whatever, that lets them do super-powered things, just flavored appropriately to let them still feel "martial."

Quote from: SteerpikeCan a high-level demon or elemental (or whatever) fight entire armies (well, some of them maybe, but not most...)?  Can it hold a garrison, manning all of the battlements at once?
Well, since you asked, I think there are a fairly large number of abilities that D&D monsters can gain at even middle CRs that just crush mundanes, no matter how many of them there are. For example, a purely mundane force is absolutely powerless against anything incorporeal or with "DR over9000/magic." They are also severely limited against anything with flying and invisibility or a lot of overlapping resistances to the kinds of damage they're likely to be dealing; if we're playing them realistically at all, they will probably be utterly demoralized long before they're able to do any real damage.

However, that's not even really the point. The point is that when facing a "high level threat," the Wizard has the following options:
A) Deal with it directly by dealing damage to it. (i.e., blasting)
B) Cast a save-or-whatever spell to circumvent the problem.
C) Summon a creature with unique special abilities that can deal with the issue.
D) Cast a powerful and rather generic problem-solving spell like wish.
E) Hire some guys to deal with it.

The Fighter basically has A and E on that list, without all the other stuff. His problem solving ability at high levels becomes basically a strict subset of the Wizard's. And that's no fun.

Quote from: Steerpiketo keep the people of Rohan safe against 10000 Uruk-Hai.
But it was Saruman (i.e., a high level Wizard) that made those Uruk-Hai in the first place. :grin:

Quote from: SteerpikeI don't see why some degree of multiple attribute dependency is really that big of a problem, especially if you modify character generation procedure in light of it.
I'd say MAD is a fairly big problem if we assume "standard D&D character creation." If we're not, of course, that objection goes out the window, but that's a pretty big change to make!

Tangential

#114
QuoteBounded accuracy doesn't actually do anything useful. If your attack bonuses don't really grow and enemy's defenses don't really grow either, it's essentially the exact same situation as 4e where everything improves in lock-step, only instead of them all getting a +5 to match my +5 nobody has gained much of anything. You don't feel any real sense of improvement.
I agree that the progression becomes false and non-empowering. It is my understanding that one of the goals of Next is to focus attention on on aspects of levelling up that are different (say class features or spell lists) than the +1 ad naseum that has plagued traditional rp-gaming for some years.

QuoteI understand the idea of wanting to make monsters relevant longer, but I think there's a certain point when a regular old orc just isn't a threat any more. It helps to solidify a sense of growth, like, you've made it to the "Paragon Tier" or whatever they're going to call it.
This, totally, this.

QuoteAnyway, if nothing really improves, the only way you can actually fight more guys is by increasing HP ridiculous amounts... or by using a ton of equipment to boost your attacks and defenses, since you won't be getting much of anything from your levels. And then we're back to Christmas tree land.
There are more ways than simply HP++++. Modifying the area of attacks, for instance, which might come from a class feature rather than an item.


QuoteHaving actually run adventures with Next, I will freely admit it is a much deadlier system than 3.5 and especially 4E.
Totally agree


QuoteThe difference is that there will never be a situation where one character can stand against a hode of Orcs and only worry about lose a handful of HP when one or two of them crits.
Lame. One of my least favorite aspects of the game. I beleive it results from the ideolopgical struggle between old-school Gygaxian dungeon fantasy and new-school Sandersonian high fantasy playing out in mechanics. I do think that one dude at 20th level (or even maybe 12th) should be able to stand against a horde of orcs with no fear. It's a preference thing for me and I hope it isn't hard coded into the end rules one way or the other.

QuoteThat's why I still like the idea of representing the horde as a single abstract unit that gets bonuses and such. You're right it's sort of a hack, but it seems preferable to (and more mathematically sound than) the weird thing they're actually doing, where they expect you to fight a horde anyway and nobody's sure if the math even works out right to let you do that.
Word. 13th Age or Spycraft style.

QuoteI know, idiotic way to design a system. Believe me, I see that. They should have gotten the numbers down pat before building everything else.
Fools!
Settings I\'ve Designed: Mandria, Veil, Nordgard, Earyhuza, Yrcacia, Twin Lands<br /><br />Settings I\'ve Developed: Danthos, the Aspects Cosmos, Solus, Cyrillia, DIcefreaks\' Great Wheel, Genesis, Illios, Vale, Golarion, Untime, Meta-Earth, Lands of Rhyme

sparkletwist

Jaerc, I edited your post to use quote tags instead of... whatever it it was you were doing.  :grin:

Elemental_Elf

Why can't my Level 20 Fighter be as bad ass as Beowulf?

I don't really understand why people insist on making a Fighter "Mister Realistic Average Joe Soldier" when he's surrounded by wizards who can blast away continents, clerics who can heal whole armies and Druids who can shapeshift into Hydras.

Why does the Fighter have to be realistic? Why can't he be just as bad ass as the other classes?

I don't mean in the same vein (i.e. magical) but give him his own brand of awesome that fits the class' motif.

I want to be Leonidas and Gilgamesh, not a meatshield or mere hanger-on for the really cool characters.

SA

It depends on the game's core conceit: do we want the game's classic archetypes to A) remain interdependent throughout their advancement, B) begin interdependent but develop diverse and liberating competencies as they advance, or C) be consistently complementary but self-sufficient?

In 3E, Fighters were A while Wizards were B. This is a legitimate structuring, but it leads to an unhappy situation where a Fighter and a Wizard, both maximising their class abilities, are playing two completely different high-level games. This is problematic for the game itself but more importantly for the players at the table who are now by necessity making unequal contributions.

The problem is not that they are A, B or C specifically, but that they are different. Dungeons and Dragons in A is like a high fantasy heist series: everyone's a specialist and they seek out other specialists to round out their collective skillset before they venture underground and steal all your shit. B begins similarly, but by mid-game everyone gets their own spin-off. Importantly, both are very sensitive to class selection: it all falls apart without carefully crafted synergy.

In C everybody can accomplish pretty much anything they need to to complete an adventure (meaning on the one hand that some familiar challenges simply aren't ubiquitous, like locked doors; or that everybody knows how to pick locks). They simply face less intense opposition than they would in a party. Here, it's perfectly legit to have four-of-a-kind fighters or monks-full-of-bards.

Alas, I discovered pretty early on that since there were no rules for running up a dragon's spine in mid-flight and stabbing it through the brain, Dungeons and Dragons' core design ethos was totally flawed. It promises one style but delivers another. I want my fighting dude to go mano a mano with a pit fiend while meteors are slamming down all around and turning the world to lava.

SA

Quote from: EEI want to be Leonidas and Gilgamesh, not a meatshield or mere hanger-on for the really cool characters
Gilgamesh, maybe. Beowulf and Leonidas are utter scrubs by comparison.

Elemental_Elf

Quote from: Steerpike
*long list of examples*

Ah but many of those are just side-venture locations that spice up the monotony of overland travel, endemic war and politicking. D&D, especially in the early days, was all about the Dungeon as the main area for adventure with everything else serving as a backdrop to those adventures. It's backwards when compared to the literature that inspired D&D (and in many ways, backwards to the way stories are written even today). I wasn't saying there were no dungeons in literature but the idea of the "Dungeon Crawl" as the means by which the protagonists experience the majority of the world while "on camera" is definitely not inspired by the fantasy literature of the day.