D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[nevin]

perhaps. Later I'll go back through the thread.

 

[FrogReaver]

perhaps. Later I'll go back through the thread.

I am curious what I said that made you think I meant that, so if you come across it, let me know. Gotta know how badly I really worded things.

 

[Garthanos]

Well take the Cavalier subclass. It's probably the most effective defender 5e has.

And a level 1 4e fighter does many things you cannot do with that till level 18... and its abilities are in conflict with things which should be built on top of the design is patch work and bad. Shrug I can see reasons for not playing it that are unrelated to the fantasy. A 4e fighter can with only a small portion of its character design choices be a wall of steel nearly impossible to run past at level 1 and painful if you try.

 

[Oofta]

Not only another thread raised from the dead, but "4E is better" baiting? It's a two-fer!

 

[James Gasik]

4e, like any game or edition, is better at the things it's better at (class balance, tactical combat, long adventuring days, lots of character building options). And it's worse at the things it's not so good at (exploration, doing things that don't involve combat).

If you're the kind of player that likes strategic in-depth combats, deep character progression, and prefer using bespoke skills and abilities to deal with challenges- 4e can really be the game for you. I enjoyed it, and my groups also did.

But at the same token, if you want to run funhouse dungeons, in-depth political campaigns, and player goals that don't involve the endless treadmill of fight powerful enemies > gain treasure > turn treasure into character power > fight more powerful enemies, 4e is likely not the game for you.

But that doesn't mean that other editions are incapable of doing these things (just as 4e isn't incapable of the above), it's just that wasn't as large a focus for the design team, and so the DM may have to put in more work to make the magic happen.

 

[Bluenose]

But at the same token, if you want to run funhouse dungeons, in-depth political campaigns, and player goals that don't involve the endless treadmill of fight powerful enemies > gain treasure > turn treasure into character power > fight more powerful enemies, 4e is likely not the game for you.

Is any edition of D&D good for political campaigns? At moss there are some subsystems outside the core rules that do a bit; and they don't always interact well with the main rules. I don't think 5e has anything along those lines.

 

[Zardnaar]

Is any edition of D&D good for political campaigns? At moss there are some subsystems outside the core rules that do a bit; and they don't always interact well with the main rules. I don't think 5e has anything along those lines.

B/X or BECMI and 2E are about the best it gets.

 

[Oofta]

Is any edition of D&D good for political campaigns? At moss there are some subsystems outside the core rules that do a bit; and they don't always interact well with the main rules. I don't think 5e has anything along those lines.

It's certainly doesn't have much in the way of rules support. But gamifying political influence has it's own drawbacks. No game can do everything, no combination of rules or lack of rules is going to be the best for everyone. Just like every edition of D&D has strengths and weaknesses.

I personally don't want significant rules for social interactions beyond the skills and checks we currently have for a few reasons. I'd play a different game if that's what I wanted, I'm sure if I really wanted it there's some 3PP out there, I'd rather have a freeform system. So for me a light touch is best.

So at best I would ignore in-depth rules for political machinations, at worst I'd get bored dealing with them as a player because having, as an example, some sort of point influence system would change the nature of the game in a way I wouldn't enjoy.

 

[James Gasik]

Is any edition of D&D good for political campaigns? At moss there are some subsystems outside the core rules that do a bit; and they don't always interact well with the main rules. I don't think 5e has anything along those lines.

It's a fair point, though I will say that I did play in a 2e political campaign and those random bonuses to NPC interactions from Kits came in handy a lot more than I thought they would, and our Swashbuckler's ability to "find trouble" was really useful.

Also, 2e had a lot of very useful Non-Weapon Proficiencies for almost any type of game you wanted to run, and you could start with quite a few. The slow rate of acquisition for new proficiency slots, on the other hand, wasn't so great.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The 3E fighter had terrible saves relative to DCs (5E repeats this) and as an added bonus you got penalties to hit with your follow up attacks a huge mistake that thankfully is more or less exclusive to 3.X games.

The problem woth iterative attacls was not the design intend. The problem was the execition and lack of advice. I bet a lot of money (10ct or so) that the intend was that AC of enemies does not go up by level and your last attach should have about 40 to 60 percent chamce to hit. And at level 20 your first attack should nearly always hit. At least with a moderate amoount of magic items and maybe a buff spell.

3.0 balors (CR 18) only had 30AC.

At level 18, with 20 natural strength, a +3 sword, a +4 str item and weapon expertise, you are looking at a total attacl bonus of +14. Not quite 50% to hit, but 30%. All without a single buff. And really only mediocre items. Add in flanking and you are looking at 40%. Your primary attack is an auto hit.

The problem was that DMs were not used to have that hight chances of hitting. (Although fighters in AD&D should also hotnquite reliably at that level... but who played a charaxter that far?
So the solution was buffing up AC... and 3.5 floowed the trend in general.