PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] The purpose of Fighters



Pages : [1] 2

Starsinger
2008-09-14, 12:42 PM
Now, according to the Designer's idea of 3.5, the 4 class roles are Meat Shield, Skill Monkey, Glass Cannon, Band-Aids. AKA Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric.

Given some of the sentiments and statements I received in another thread, particularly

Because the 3.5 model was so much better.

Fighter: *Stands infront of enemy* Hey! down here! I'm the guy in the armor! Go for me!
Opponent with Int greater than 3: *Ignores the Fighter*


Yes, that does indeed sound better.


Yes, I have to say that sounds better. Why do you think an intelligent opponent wouldn't do that?

It seems from this comment and some others (by other posters) that marking is intended to make crap tactics viable. If you have weighed yourself down with armour and then stood in the middle of an open space, opponents should walk around you and slaughter your friends, because you are an idiot and it's not up to the game to rescue you from your own lack of talent, is it?

Should falling damage be reduced because you didn't check for a pit trap?

I have to ask, what is the purpose of Fighters? Is it really just to stand there and pray the DM takes pity on the Fighter and decides not to ignore her?

Edit: I'm referring, by asking the Purpose, as to the point of it's inclusion in the 4 roles that 3.5 was supposedly balanced around. I'm aware that D&D is a game where you can play with any class combination of your choice. So please, I'm not looking for anything resembling, "A fighter is for when you want to play a fighter"

Eldariel
2008-09-14, 12:51 PM
No, the purpose of the fighters is to be the tank. Only, it takes a lot of effort and optimization skill (not to mention high Int) to actually accomplish it. This is where all the Trip Monkey-builds are coming from - they're pretty much the only way to make a Fighter competent at what it's exactly supposed to be good at (at least without ToB and Dungeonscape - with ToB, Standstill/Thicket of Blades works just as well, and with Dungeonscape, you can use Bull Rush to rebuild the battlefield).

So yea, Fighter is supposed to be the tank, but the class abilities are very poorly designed for that and thus require someone who knows what he's doing to pick just the right scores and feats to make Fighter peform its primary task. Amusingly enough, it's actually easier to make a competent damage monkey Fighter (through Charging and multipliers) than it is to make a competent Tank Fighter. That said, both can be done and multitask-optimized Fighters can perform multiples of those tasks (heavily optimized Fighters do one of those things really well, but they're on average extremely boring to play so for actual practical optimization, I'd prefer a multitasker).

Glimbur
2008-09-14, 12:53 PM
To me, the fighter type is there to do damage. Sure, the wizard can do more and more accurately, the rogue can do better... almost everyone can, really, but here's the catch: it takes them either resources (usually spells) or the proper setup (flanking or invis for rogues). Fighters start at the beginning of the fight and go to the end doing damage. A support-type wizard uses the fighter's focus on damage and buffs/debuffs so that he can do more damage faster.

A fighter is there because most enemies are going to be killed by hp damage and it's not always worth using a spell on them.

FMArthur
2008-09-14, 12:56 PM
Well, when the casters and UMDers can all fly, the Tarrasque doesn't even have a choice but to devour the fighter.

Kalirren
2008-09-14, 01:02 PM
I have a guess; it's tradition.

Specifically, the generation that played the first D&D games learned to play it when it was still very associated with the wargaming genre, where the fighter definitely has a use: only mages and special flying units could fly, and there were always a lot of thing running around on the ground to be worried about.

Then there's the second generation of D&D players who learned to play from that generation. They learned the habits of the first generation while divorcing the base concept from that of wargaming. So the fighter was still useful.

Then there's the newest generation of players, who are used to fighting primarily anime-style battles against single foes or small numbers of foes, and which didn't really (for the most part) grow up with the tradition of the first generation of D&D players that had been most closely influenced by wargaming. These people take it for granted that the most powerful people on the field can't be touched by the fighter without significant help from his allies.

So I think the problem with fighters is a design flaw; specifically, designers put the traditional party roles first, then designed the classes around their expectations of them, which isn't well suited to the newer generations' expectations.

Crow
2008-09-14, 01:50 PM
To me, the fighter type is there to do damage. Sure, the wizard can do more and more accurately, the rogue can do better... almost everyone can, really, but here's the catch: it takes them either resources (usually spells) or the proper setup (flanking or invis for rogues). Fighters start at the beginning of the fight and go to the end doing damage. A support-type wizard uses the fighter's focus on damage and buffs/debuffs so that he can do more damage faster.

A fighter is there because most enemies are going to be killed by hp damage and it's not always worth using a spell on them.

This is the view that I hold as well. Whoever came up with the idea of the fighter as "Defender" or "Meatshield" is insane. When has the fighter ever been able to function in the role of defender?

But one thing the fighter has always done is to provide consistent damage at pretty much any point during the party's "day", provided he is still capable of fighting.

There is a very good reason he's called the FIGHTER, and not the Defender, Protector, Bodyguard, or Meatshield.

Eldariel
2008-09-14, 01:54 PM
I think it's quite clear that Fighter isn't meant to be a primary damage dealer in 3.5. In AD&D, the extra attacks pushed him to that direction (but in AD&D, the only way to really control opponents in melee was to kill them), but in 3.X, all characters get them, and Fighter doesn't really get any relevant extra damage sources while characters such as Rogue get impressive amounts.

That leads me to believe Fighter is designed to be there hitting for light damage and forcing the opponents to hit him, thus allowing for the Rogue to deal the real damage without danger to himself and with Fighter providing the flank. Also, Fighter is the high HD type so it's in the front to prevent the opponent from getting to your low HP casters. In other words, the role "defender" has always existed, just without a name. And that's why Fighter in 4.0 had the archetype spelled out. That way people don't mistake Fighter for a damage dealer.

As for his name, it's Fighter. That means he fights. That doesn't mean he deals damage, that just means he fights. It leads to "he forces opponents to engage him" just as much as "he hits opponents really hard". The name just isn't a guideline in this regard.

Crow
2008-09-14, 02:03 PM
I think it's quite clear that Fighter isn't meant to be a primary damage dealer in 3.5. In AD&D, the extra attacks pushed him to that direction (but in AD&D, the only way to really control opponents in melee was to kill them), but in 3.X, all characters get them, and Fighter doesn't really get any relevant extra damage sources while characters such as Rogue get impressive amounts.

Not primary damage. Consistent damage.


That leads me to believe Fighter is designed to be there hitting for light damage and forcing the opponents to hit him, thus allowing for the Rogue to deal the real damage without danger to himself and with Fighter providing the flank. Also, Fighter is the high HD type so it's in the front to prevent the opponent from getting to your low HP casters. In other words, the role "defender" has always existed, just without a name. And that's why Fighter in 4.0 had the archetype spelled out. That way people don't mistake Fighter for a damage dealer.

How in the world would you get the idea that the fighter is intended to force the opponents to hit him? There is absolutely nothing about the class which would indicate that. How would the flanking rogue not be in danger if he was flanking the opponent? If the flanking rogue is dishing out huge amounts of damage, it would require huge DM disconnect to say that an intelligent enemy is somehow "forced" to focus on the fighter instead of the rogue.


As for his name, it's Fighter. That means he fights. That doesn't mean he deals damage, that just means he fights. It leads to "he forces opponents to engage him" just as much as "he hits opponents really hard". The name just isn't a guideline in this regard.

Really, it leads to neither of those conclusions. Like you said, he fights. He doesn't "defend" or "tank" either.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-14, 02:09 PM
There was a real flip from 2e to 3e in regards to melee damage dealers.

In 2e, only the Fighter could do superior melee damage. He got specialization, extra attacks, and tons of weapons. Paladins and Rangers were decent fighters with either magic (Paladin) or skills (Ranger... yes, I know they got magic too). Thieves were not combatants at all! They existed as the original "skill monkey." The melee abilities of wizards, clerics, and druids... well, not much to speak of.

In 3e, the Rogue suddenly became a damage dealer! Clerics also lost their "blunt weapons" restrictions and got a lot of personal buffs for combat, Druids got a lot more use out of their shapechanging and better melee spells, while Paladins and Rangers remained more-or-less unchanged. The Fighter basically lost what he was good at, and got nothing in return that couldn't be duplicated by other classes or magic... he was a legacy class.

I'm buying into the "legacy class" interpretation of 3e Fighters - that they were included without any real thought as to what they were to do in the new system. I mean, just looking at their class feature (bonus feats) does a lot to reinforce that perception.

snoopy13a
2008-09-14, 02:09 PM
You might be assuming too much metagame knowledge on behalf of the NPCs. A character in armor could be a fighter but it also could be a cleric, a paladin, etc. A character not wearing armor could be a wizard but it also could be a merchant, a noble, etc. A character wearing light armor could be rogue or perhaps a bard or a fighter who can't afford heavy armor.

If we assume wizards are rare in the general population, then NPCs wouldn't necessarily know that a PC is a wizard until the PC actually casts a spell (obviously there are exceptions such as if the NPCs have previous knowledge of the PCs or if the wizard starts off flying).

My take is that NPCs should attack whomever is percieved at an immediate threat. The characters in armor: threats. The guy in back with a bow and arrow: threat. The wimpy looking guy in back with a walking stick who looks like he is being escorted: not a threat unless he's a wizard/sorceror which is highly unlikely (from the NPCs point of view). Of course, once the wizard casts a spell then all bets are off.

Animals however, should probably attack whomever is closest to them. They aren't really smart enough to know that it is the wizard in back who is casting those nasty spells on them.

Overall, NPCs usually do not know the character's stats and background.

Starsinger
2008-09-14, 02:11 PM
That leads me to believe Fighter is designed to be there hitting for light damage and forcing the opponents to hit him, thus allowing for the Rogue to deal the real damage without danger to himself and with Fighter providing the flank. Also, Fighter is the high HD type so it's in the front to prevent the opponent from getting to your low HP casters. In other words, the role "defender" has always existed, just without a name. And that's why Fighter in 4.0 had the archetype spelled out. That way people don't mistake Fighter for a damage dealer.

I don't agree with the implied statement that the 4e Fighter, forces the enemy to attack him. Rather a Fighter's Mark means it's more difficult to attack someone else because the Fighter is in your face, focusing on you, and if you expose yourself to him by attacking someone else, he's going to take advantage of that weak point. That makes it a good idea to attack the Fighter, but it's by no means forced.

The New Bruceski
2008-09-14, 02:17 PM
This is the view that I hold as well. Whoever came up with the idea of the fighter as "Defender" or "Meatshield" is insane. When has the fighter ever been able to function in the role of defender?

But one thing the fighter has always done is to provide consistent damage at pretty much any point during the party's "day", provided he is still capable of fighting.

There is a very good reason he's called the FIGHTER, and not the Defender, Protector, Bodyguard, or Meatshield.

To be fair, when dungeon-crawling, environments are often cramped enough that a Fighter can act as a moving obstacle. The problems in defending arise because unless there's something particularly troubling about attacks of opportunity, he can't stop more than a 5-foot hallway alone, and once the creature has reached the squishy threats, he has no incentives for them to stop.

It's sort of the difference between "Why should I attack you" and "why should I not attack him?"

The New Bruceski
2008-09-14, 02:19 PM
My take is that NPCs should attack whomever is percieved at an immediate threat. The characters in armor: threats. The guy in back with a bow and arrow: threat. The wimpy looking guy in back with a walking stick who looks like he is being escorted: not a threat unless he's a wizard/sorceror which is highly unlikely (from the NPCs point of view). Of course, once the wizard casts a spell then all bets are off.

Animals however, should probably attack whomever is closest to them. They aren't really smart enough to know that it is the wizard in back who is casting those nasty spells on them.

Goals also factor into things. An unarmored person travelling with a guard is probably a valuable target (why else would the armored folk bring him?). To an animal it's less troublesome prey than someone covered in metal.

Eldariel
2008-09-14, 02:20 PM
I don't agree with the implied statement that the 4e Fighter, forces the enemy to attack him. Rather a Fighter's Mark means it's more difficult to attack someone else because the Fighter is in your face, focusing on you, and if you expose yourself to him by attacking someone else, he's going to take advantage of that weak point. That makes it a good idea to attack the Fighter, but it's by no means forced.

The idea is that the Fighter strives to force the opponent to attack him. In the same way, in 3.5, I feel the Fighter's role is that he should strive to make the opponent attack him. That doesn't mean he works out that way, but I feel that's the way he was designed.


Really, it leads to neither of those conclusions. Like you said, he fights. He doesn't "defend" or "tank" either.

Yea, but Fight doesn't involve "being the biggest damage dealer". It isn't descriptive enough to mean any of those. That's my whole point - there're no conclusions to be drawn from it other than he fights. How he fights is not implied - aggressive style, defensive style, all that is completely disconnected from the name.

Starsinger
2008-09-14, 02:23 PM
The idea is that the Fighter strives to force the opponent to attack him. In the same way, in 3.5, I feel the Fighter's role is that he should strive to make the opponent attack him. That doesn't mean he works out that way, but I feel that's the way he was designed.

This is true, my only real complaint with your post was the use of the word "Force" which y'know makes Marking sound like aggro when marked monsters have a choice. :smalltongue:

Saph
2008-09-14, 02:43 PM
I think of the 'purpose' of the Fighter class as being something which you multiclass into whenever you need some extra feats. :)

It's actually a perfectly good class if you look at it that way - well, except for levels 3/5/7. Mechanically, though, playing as a single-class Fighter doesn't make much sense. You're nearly always better off switching to something else.

So I think of Fighter as sort of like a lower-level version of a prestige class - it's a combat-specialised class that you take when you want to work on your sword skills for a couple of levels. It's probably not how it was intended, but it does work better that way.

- Saph

Prometheus
2008-09-14, 02:47 PM
I've done some calculations a while back and if I recall: With proper power attacking and multiple attacks, a fighter does a bit better than a rogue who is flanking the same target. Take into account feats, magic weapons, and magic armor, the fighter does do significantly better. The problem seems to be that the fighter isn't much better, and that spellcasters can do cool things that are better than damage. Fighter were intended to deal the most damage in melee (maybe in combat) and to take hits about as well as a barbarian (who has more hp but typically less AC). Again, they are underpowered, but it really isn't as bad as people make it.
It's true, a smart monster doesn't attack the fighter. However, many monster do (it's the closest, it's probably the most obvious that its a combatant, and soldier-types are trained against them and fulfilling the same role). That leaves monsters which are smart and either specialize in ranged attack, magic attacks, or have high mobility in an open field. It would be nice to give the fighter more goad type abilities or the ability to prevent an opponent from getting past him, though, I definitely agree.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-14, 03:10 PM
I think of the 'purpose' of the Fighter class as being something which you multiclass into whenever you need some extra feats. :)

It's actually a perfectly good class if you look at it that way - well, except for levels 3/5/7. Mechanically, though, playing as a single-class Fighter doesn't make much sense. You're nearly always better off switching to something else.

So I think of Fighter as sort of like a lower-level version of a prestige class - it's a combat-specialised class that you take when you want to work on your sword skills for a couple of levels. It's probably not how it was intended, but it does work better that way.

- Saph

That approach would be better recieved view, but then the designers stupidly added in Favored Classes in addition to the Fighter.
So multiclassing became a danger (unless you kept certain levels close)

Really, I still don't get why they included them? A throw back to 2.0's racial reastrictions?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-14, 03:12 PM
Really, I still don't get why they included them? A throw back to 2.0's racial reastrictions?

Yes.

3e was WotC's first attempt at "owning" D&D, so they held on to lots of vestiges of the old system - like the Fighter :smalltongue:

nagora
2008-09-14, 03:37 PM
I don't agree with the implied statement that the 4e Fighter, forces the enemy to attack him. Rather a Fighter's Mark means it's more difficult to attack someone else because the Fighter is in your face, focusing on you, and if you expose yourself to him by attacking someone else, he's going to take advantage of that weak point. That makes it a good idea to attack the Fighter, but it's by no means forced.
"Hey, now, da boss, he is a very reasonable kinda guy, y'know? He sayz to me, `Vinnie, don't you go forcing nobody to do nothin' dey don't wanna do, you hear? Youz just let 'em know that if dey don't pay over da money, then we break their legs, see? Stress the point dat dey gotta choice. It's entirely up to them; just hint that it would be a good idea to pay up.'"

The fighter should fight. And to do that, each fighter should be able to adopt different tactics, depending on the situation. In other words, they should be the generalist combatant. It's fair enough that some characters' ability scores will make them better at certain combat roles than others, but I see the generalist who can put his/her hand to any style of fighting as the core idea. I'm not saying that anyone who was involved in desiging 4e, or far less 3e, had that idea in their minds.

Thieves, of course, should be avoiding combat for all they're worth. Again, the 3e designers were not really thinking very deeply and screwed this up like they screwed up pretty well everything else. Never get three people to design a game when one of them has no imagination, one of them really just wants to redo his old game and the third one is an idiot. That's my tip for the day.

Matthew
2008-09-14, 03:45 PM
There was a real flip from 2e to 3e in regards to melee damage dealers.

In 2e, only the Fighter could do superior melee damage. He got specialization, extra attacks, and tons of weapons. Paladins and Rangers were decent fighters with either magic (Paladin) or skills (Ranger... yes, I know they got magic too). Thieves were not combatants at all! They existed as the original "skill monkey." The melee abilities of wizards, clerics, and druids... well, not much to speak of.

In 3e, the Rogue suddenly became a damage dealer! Clerics also lost their "blunt weapons" restrictions and got a lot of personal buffs for combat, Druids got a lot more use out of their shapechanging and better melee spells, while Paladins and Rangers remained more-or-less unchanged. The Fighter basically lost what he was good at, and got nothing in return that couldn't be duplicated by other classes or magic... he was a legacy class.

I'm buying into the "legacy class" interpretation of 3e Fighters - that they were included without any real thought as to what they were to do in the new system. I mean, just looking at their class feature (bonus feats) does a lot to reinforce that perception.

I agree with this, more or less. Also, Fighters have extremely good saving throws versus magic and other "bad things" in AD&D. On the other hand, weapon restrictions for Clerics are not a big deal (especially if weapon specialisation is in play), many 2e specialist priests had access to different weapons, it is really the spells that elevate them in D20. Magic in D20 is just generally a lot harder to ignore or disrupt then it is in AD&D.

The D20 PHB/DMG is very plain about what the designers thought the fighter was for. He was supposed to be the best at fighting. It was poor design (or alternatively Timmy Card conspiracy theory) that robbed the fighter of this role.

D20 Dungeon Master's Guide 3.5, p. 174.


If you have created a variant class with sneaking and subterfuge capabilities better than the rogue, or a combat-oriented class more adept at combat than the fighter, you have gone astray.

nagora
2008-09-14, 04:34 PM
Oh, the irony!

J.Gellert
2008-09-14, 04:50 PM
The fighter stands in full plate and hopes the monster will attack him? Really?

We've always had the opposite in our games. Wizards with 5 clones due to mirror image, miss chance, and stoneskins going "Why aren't the monsters attacking me?".

Fighters are the damage-dealers, I am sure of it.

(Take note, I am 100% opposed to any sort of "aggro" mechanism. Not exclusive to 4th ed, but even such things like the Knight class).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-14, 05:35 PM
The fighter stands in full plate and hopes the monster will attack him? Really?

We've always had the opposite in our games. Wizards with 5 clones due to mirror image, miss chance, and stoneskins going "Why aren't the monsters attacking me?".

This, I think, highlights the Fail of 3e quite well.

While I am generally loathe to say what is "right" for a given class, does it seem right to anyone that a wizard should be the front line of a battle? Sure, the wizard can throw up wards and such to protect him from mundane harm, but aren't they supposed to be less reliable than the steel of the fighter?

On Reliable Fighters
This is where I see the "reliable fighter" archetype popping up; an archetype that was well supported in pre-3e D&D, since Vancian casting would leave a wizard exhausted in time, while a fighter could, theoretically, go on swinging until he lost his last HP. 3e broke the Vancian system by giving us mechanical magic - magic items which were reliable, easy to make, and common - and various "reserve feats" and spontaneous casters which increased the reliability of casters.

On 4e Fighters
However, WotC decided they would stick with more reliable classes rather than go back to a party of one-trick ponies (or, rather, limited-trick ponies), so they needed to find a new role for old-reliable. First, they gave him a bunch of "reliable" powers which, while not great do encourage the image of the slugger who keeps swinging till it works. Secondly, the Fighter's class features are frequently in play (+1 to hit all the time, +WIS to hit on all OAs, Marking with every attack for free) while other classes' features are either situational (e.g. Rogue sneak attack damage) or costly/limited use (e.g. Clerics' Healing Word). Finally, WotC took up the martial archetype of the Protector of the Weak (knights-in-shining armor, Big Damn Heroes, and so on) and gave it to the Fighter.

This last feature is fairly key. A Fighter dresses up in heavy armor not for show, but because he expects to wade into the thickest part of a fight, where lots of people will be taking shots at him. This was certainly true pre-3e, but it's always kind of been assumed, no? Big HD, good saves; the fighter was supposed to take a licking! Well, if he was supposed to get knocked around a lot already, why not make it his "job" to take the hits for his weaker party members? Now, the Fighter isn't a self-sacrificing guy (that's the Paladin - which I think people can agree is a reasonable class to call "defender?"), but he is supposed to be at the vanguard of the fight and it's hard to be at the vanguard if everyone just runs past you to hit the squishies in the rear. So why not make it part of the Fighter's craft to discourage enemies from running past him to ostensibly easier targets? Hence the "defender fighter."

Knaight
2008-09-14, 06:34 PM
The fighter stands in full plate and hopes the monster will attack him? Really?

We've always had the opposite in our games. Wizards with 5 clones due to mirror image, miss chance, and stoneskins going "Why aren't the monsters attacking me?".

Fighters are the damage-dealers, I am sure of it.

(Take note, I am 100% opposed to any sort of "aggro" mechanism. Not exclusive to 4th ed, but even such things like the Knight class).

I'm also opposed to any sort of aggro mechanism, but the mark at least doesn't have to be that, its you paying attention to them, and smacking them when they try to leave, if they're out of range, tough luck. That said some of the powers do run astray of this, such as the one that sucks a bunch of enemies in to smack them, and it makes sense that the fighter would try to hold people off the wizard. He's the one with enough skill in weapons to parry, who might be using a shield, and who probably has heavy armor, and any one of these should be enough. Parrying has never been simulated well in D&D(although 3.x was the worst offender here, where BAB goes sky high and nobody ever gains a bonus to AC despite ridiculous weapon skills that should allow them to bock). The mark encourages that, by screwing up anybody who actually thinks that when within reach of the fighter he's not going to make life difficult for them when they are his main focus. They should be the damage dealers who also hold people off their friends. However in 3.x there is no way a fighter can stay between 1 person and a friend in a 20 foot hall way with a sword, they can just run around behind him and hit the friend in the back, where they should be able to take a few steps and change direction(this also applies to the problems of facing in games, why is it that they can't turn around when their enemy starts circling them?)

Serenity
2008-09-14, 06:50 PM
Thieves, of course, should be avoiding combat for all they're worth. Again, the 3e designers were not really thinking very deeply and screwed this up like they screwed up pretty well everything else. Never get three people to design a game when one of them has no imagination, one of them really just wants to redo his old game and the third one is an idiot. That's my tip for the day.

Yes, because it's good game design to have a class that can't contribute to a core part of the gameplay experience.

JaxGaret
2008-09-14, 06:53 PM
Oh, the irony!

Ha ha, indeed. Quite ironic.

Knaight
2008-09-14, 06:54 PM
In 3.5 everybody had to participate in combat, but thats only because it moved so incredibly slowly. Previous editions were faster, so a thief who stayed away from combat, except maybe a quick backstab and threatening people with a crossbow made sense. But when routine fights take half an hour, someone who can't participate in them is pretty much shafted.

Matthew
2008-09-14, 06:58 PM
Yes, because it's good game design to have a class that can't contribute to a core part of the gameplay experience.

What that should tell you is that combat is not a core part of the gameplay experience. :smallwink:

However, it isn't really the case that thieves cannot contribute to combat in AD&D. It is that they cannot contribute as strongly as the fighter or other combat orientated classes.

Eldariel
2008-09-14, 07:01 PM
The thing is, that class can't really contribute out of combat either. All he does is...Jump, Climb and Swim.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-14, 07:08 PM
What that should tell you is that combat is not a core part of the gameplay experience. :smallwink:

However, it isn't really the case that thieves cannot contribute to combat in AD&D. It is that they cannot contribute as strongly as the fighter or other combat orientated classes.

Well... I always found running my thief into combat to be really risky. His THACO wasn't great, he couldn't wear much armor, and he didn't have access to really good weapons. Oh, and his poor D6 HD! God, I remember when a thief of mine god clobbered by an Earth Elemental while the Paladin was distracted.

But... I haven't played 2e in, I guess 7 years, so it's all a bit rusty. I do remember that I almost never could use my Backstab attack.

Matthew
2008-09-14, 07:25 PM
Well... I always found running my thief into combat to be really risky. His THACO wasn't great, he couldn't wear much armor, and he didn't have access to really good weapons. Oh, and his poor D6 HD! God, I remember when a thief of mine god clobbered by an Earth Elemental while the Paladin was distracted.

But... I haven't played 2e in, I guess 7 years, so it's all a bit rusty. I do remember that I almost never could use my Backstab attack.

Heh, running your fighter into combat is pretty risky in AD&D, but a thief is certainly more likely to get killed. On the other hand, a friendly mage armour (duration is only limited by a hit point total in 2e, so cast it the day before) spell starts him with armour class 6(14) before dexterity adjustment. Fighter THAC0 doesn't outpace the thief too badly at low levels (4,000 xp is the break point). If he's toting around a dexterity of 17+ he should be able to fight with two weapons pretty effectively (0/-2), or else shoot arrows at range (+2 to hit). Being not encumbered by heavy armour he can also outrun most orcs, goblins, or, indeed, fighters. :smallbiggrin:

Deepblue706
2008-09-14, 08:57 PM
The purpose of Fighters is to emulate mundane heroes whose abilities allow them to consistently lay down hurt onto less able foes.

Being a warrior is not about being good under specific conditions. It's not about having special or unique abilities. It's about killing less skilled opponents with strength, speed and cunning, and enduring lots of punishment with hardiness and discipline. Training might vary, but the principle is always the same. A Fighter is not supposed to be a "Defender" any more than the modern Soldier is. Their duty might be to civilians, but having to protect other people on the battlefield is a liability. Fighters fight on battlefields to control territory and eliminate targets. They kill, and if you don't slow them down, they'll let you tag along.

That's what the Fighter was made for.

Thurbane
2008-09-14, 09:18 PM
I would say that the role some people are ascribing to the 3.5 Fighter (meatshield, or stop baddies wailing on other characters) would better belong to the Knight, with their abilities to force enemies into attack only them, and their ally shielding abilities and to make passing them difficult..

The main role of the Fighter in 3.5, as I see it, is to be an all purpose warrior, and to spend his abundant feats on feat chains that other characters have difficulty accessing.

YMMV.

Knaight
2008-09-14, 10:29 PM
Except for the knight has the whole aggro forcing thing, so a lot of people dislike it. Plus with melee combat you can interpose yourself in small scale skirmishes, that all falls apart as soon as guns or bows become common, in which case the best option is taking cover, but in melee it makes sense that a fighter could keep 1 person away from 1 enemy.

Crow
2008-09-14, 10:47 PM
Except for the knight has the whole aggro forcing thing, so a lot of people dislike it. Plus with melee combat you can interpose yourself in small scale skirmishes, that all falls apart as soon as guns or bows become common, in which case the best option is taking cover, but in melee it makes sense that a fighter could keep 1 person away from 1 enemy.

Which he could do just fine in a non turn-based system.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-14, 10:51 PM
Which he could do just fine in a non turn-based system.

Oh man, and he would be able to chop people's arms off in a wound-placement system too!

But then again, we are in a HP based system, which is also turn based, so I guess we have to work within the system, eh? :smalltongue:

Knaight
2008-09-14, 10:54 PM
Yep. It could be handled as an opposed skill check, done. If trying to keep multiple people away, they all get a bonus. Its not necessarily a matter of being turn based though, its the whole battle map issue. Lose the necessary battle map, and that issue goes away. Non turn based systems are pretty rare, with the notable exception of Fudge's simultaneous combat system, which works beautifully. And you could disallow checks to dodge ranged weapons, while still allowing people to attempt to block them(reasonable with a shield for some weapons, otherwise we see what spectacular failures look like). I'm not a particular fan of third edition D&D for this reason, and fourth edition handles it with the marking mechanic, which could have been done in a much better fashion. That said both of them are so far away from system of choice that I'm probably not going to be playing either much.

Matthew
2008-09-14, 11:14 PM
Oh man, and he would be able to chop people's arms off in a wound-placement system too!

But then again, we are in a HP based system, which is also turn based, so I guess we have to work within the system, eh? :smalltongue:

This is the virtue of simultaneous movement in AD&D. In D20/3e, delayed, immediate, and readied actions are all means of attempting to restore a semblance of simultaneous movement to the game. I have tried a few times to get a similar result, but unsuccessfully. It is certainly possible that 'marking' is yet another response to this shortcoming, quite interesting. I am a big fan of WH40K 1e's overwatch rule, which has a similar function to the readied action.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-14, 11:22 PM
This is the virtue of simultaneous movement in AD&D. In D20/3e, delayed, immediate, and readied actions are all means of attempting to restore a semblance of simultaneous movement to the game. I have tried a few times to get a similar result, but unsuccessfully. It is certainly possible that 'marking' is yet another response to this shortcoming, quite interesting. I am a big fan of WH40K 1e's overwatch rule, which has a similar function to the readied action.

I totally agree with you on 40K. Man, my Eldar Scouts never were the same...

I still miss the D12 table for the D-Cannon :smallfrown:

On topic
The marking is exactly for that purpose. One of the problems with simultaneous combat is that it is nigh impossible for PCs to act in coordination - either the monsters will get a jump on them, or the battle will change somehow before they can act. If you want to have a more team-based combat system, you really have to structure combats a bit more.

Personally, I think 4e has done a good job at structuring combat; I also think D&D works better as a team-based combat system instead of essentially a solo one. It's also a lot easier to keep track of what's going on.

Swordguy
2008-09-15, 12:00 AM
I have a guess; it's tradition.

Specifically, the generation that played the first D&D games learned to play it when it was still very associated with the wargaming genre, where the fighter definitely has a use: only mages and special flying units could fly, and there were always a lot of thing running around on the ground to be worried about.

Then there's the second generation of D&D players who learned to play from that generation. They learned the habits of the first generation while divorcing the base concept from that of wargaming. So the fighter was still useful.

Then there's the newest generation of players, who are used to fighting primarily anime-style battles against single foes or small numbers of foes, and which didn't really (for the most part) grow up with the tradition of the first generation of D&D players that had been most closely influenced by wargaming. These people take it for granted that the most powerful people on the field can't be touched by the fighter without significant help from his allies.

So I think the problem with fighters is a design flaw; specifically, designers put the traditional party roles first, then designed the classes around their expectations of them, which isn't well suited to the newer generations' expectations.

Bears. Bears. Bears. Bears. Bears. Bears. Bears.

(Bears repeating)

drengnikrafe
2008-09-15, 12:04 AM
I didn't read the entire thing, so I apologize if I'm stepping on someones toes, reviving a dead point, or restating an old point.

Let's say you're walking through a forest, and a band of 4 people suddenly come out. You pull your hunting knife out of your pocket as they approach, with malicious intent in their eyes. A man with a scarred face, heavy armor, and a rather large greatsword charges at you, and through swift movement, you barely dodge the loss of your head. A second person you didn't see so well moves off behind some trees, and you lose sight of him. Then, a moderately armored fellow holding a cross comes towards you. His eyes are a glowing shade or red. Somewhere in the distance you see a cloaked figure. You're not sure, but they seem to be moving their hands in a strange mannor. Shortly thereafter, a shining thing you can only describe as a badger charges at you through the air from the direction of the cloaked figure. It makes contact with your stomach, and you feel a spike of pain.

Your turn, what do you do? Do you charge at the strange cloaked figure? No, you try to stab the behemoth of an armor standing in front of you in hopes that he doesn't crush your head with his next blow (or you run away, but...).

These are my thoughts on the situation.

Swordguy
2008-09-15, 12:09 AM
...
These are my thoughts on the situation.

You're assuming people play D&D with an eye to how a real person how wants to keep living in the next few seconds would react to a combat situation. That's not how D&D works - everyone has a god's-eye view of the battlefield and the time to think over their situation and to point out exactly who the most dangerous target is. You're assuming that people, even DMs, are going to role-play a person's natural reactions instead of always taking the most mechanically optimal course of action.

Clearly, you're playing the wrong game.

:smallannoyed:

/sarcasm

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 12:13 AM
I didn't read the entire thing, so I apologize if I'm stepping on someones toes, reviving a dead point, or restating an old point.

Let's say you're walking through a forest, and a band of 4 people suddenly come out. You pull your hunting knife out of your pocket as they approach, with malicious intent in their eyes. A man with a scarred face, heavy armor, and a rather large greatsword charges at you, and through swift movement, you barely dodge the loss of your head. A second person you didn't see so well moves off behind some trees, and you lose sight of him. Then, a moderately armored fellow holding a cross comes towards you. His eyes are a glowing shade or red. Somewhere in the distance you see a cloaked figure. You're not sure, but they seem to be moving their hands in a strange mannor. Shortly thereafter, a shining thing you can only describe as a badger charges at you through the air from the direction of the cloaked figure. It makes contact with your stomach, and you feel a spike of pain.

Your turn, what do you do? Do you charge at the strange cloaked figure? No, you try to stab the behemoth of an armor standing in front of you in hopes that he doesn't crush your head with his next blow (or you run away, but...).

These are my thoughts on the situation.

But... that's not what the 3e rules would tell you to do.

Fighters might crunch your head in, but rarely in one strike, unless he was carrying a two-handed weapon. However, the high-level Rogue is (probably) easier to hit and is quite capable of dropping many d6 of extra damage on you - particularly if he full attacks! And the druid? Well, if you see a druid you should just run anyhow, but if he's not a Dire Bear, he also is easier to hit, and if he gets rolling, he'll kill you flat. Wizards, of course, can just turn you into a newt or paralyze you in a single act - you should always kill them first.

Fighters are usually the least threatening combatant on the field in 3e, but they are often also the hardest to hit with weapons. Any sane combatant would ignore them and try to take out the Glass Cannons instead, before a Hold Person or something takes him out.

EDIT:
@Swordguy - even without metagaming, a sane combatant is going to know the relative strengths of people he meets. In a world where there are wizards, priests, and druids, he will probably know how they operate - or at the very least, he'll be able to see that, yes, it is easier to stab through leather than full plate, and that while the dude with the sword may cut him a few more times, the dude in the robes is going to turn him into a newt!

I don't know about you, but if I had to fight that party, I'd take out the caster first and then book it while Grunty McIronpants slogs after me. I can outrun a dude in full plate - but I'm not sure if I can outrun magic!

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-15, 12:23 AM
I didn't read the entire thing, so I apologize if I'm stepping on someones toes, reviving a dead point, or restating an old point.

Let's say you're walking through a forest, and a band of 4 people suddenly come out. You pull your hunting knife out of your pocket as they approach, with malicious intent in their eyes. A man with a scarred face, heavy armor, and a rather large greatsword charges at you, and through swift movement, you barely dodge the loss of your head. A second person you didn't see so well moves off behind some trees, and you lose sight of him. Then, a moderately armored fellow holding a cross comes towards you. His eyes are a glowing shade or red. Somewhere in the distance you see a cloaked figure. You're not sure, but they seem to be moving their hands in a strange mannor. Shortly thereafter, a shining thing you can only describe as a badger charges at you through the air from the direction of the cloaked figure. It makes contact with your stomach, and you feel a spike of pain.

Your turn, what do you do? Do you charge at the strange cloaked figure? No, you try to stab the behemoth of an armor standing in front of you in hopes that he doesn't crush your head with his next blow (or you run away, but...).

These are my thoughts on the situation.See, I'd view it as slightly different, but that could just be personal experience.

You're the leader of a band of orcs scouting for an army, and you see a small group that looks both dangerous and covered in loot at the same time as they see you. The smallest of them puts a dagger through the eye of your friend, and he drops. One of them who is completely unarmored and looks uncomfortable on a battlefield rips the guts out of another of your friends, and strangles him with them from 50' away. One is engaged in a sword fight with a couple of your soldiers, and winning, as they can't get a blow through his armor. One turns into a bear and mauls your brother. Who do you focus on?

Swordguy
2008-09-15, 12:26 AM
EDIT:
@Swordguy - even without metagaming, a sane combatant is going to know the relative strengths of people he meets. In a world where there are wizards, priests, and druids, he will probably know how they operate - or at the very least, he'll be able to see that, yes, it is easier to stab through leather than full plate, and that while the dude with the sword may cut him a few more times, the dude in the robes is going to turn him into a newt!

I don't know about you, but if I had to fight that party, I'd take out the caster first and then book it while Grunty McIronpants slogs after me. I can outrun a dude in full plate - but I'm not sure if I can outrun magic!

It's not necessarily a matter of metagaming (though there is a question of that - is the combatant aware of the rules that make a wizard so much more dangerous than a fighter, and if he isn't, what reason does he have to fear the wizard over the fighter when the fighter is right there in front of him hitting him in the face with an axe?).

It's about understanding how people, on an instinctual level, tend to react to combat situations. You get tunnel vision. You have a hard time focusing on stuff more than a few feet away. You can't think straight. ALL of this combines to the point where the big heavily-armored guy swinging an axe at you is literally going to be the only thing on your mind. It's not even a question of having the intelligence to deal with the situation intellectually - it's about being able to stifle the animal part of your brain that says "I want to live for three more seconds" and blinds you to everything else but that.

That's something that should be kept in mind EVERY TIME we have one of these discussions, because a GM who employs this method of roleplaying opponents of the PCs will probably have campaigns where fighters are still useful - they get up in people's faces and, even without any purely mechanical method, hold their attention. Why? Because they're swinging an axe at the NPC's soft fleshy bits - bits the NPC doesn't want to lose. That tends to hold someone's attention wonderfully.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-15, 12:50 AM
The problem with that is that most of the opponents in D&D aren't going to lose fleshy bits to a Fighter. The Dragon? The Fighter is slashing and bouncing off of it's scales. The Ogre? The Fighter's not even considered a threat until he lands a decent blow. A mob of first-level Orcs? Yeah, a couple will get tied up by the Fighter, but the rest aren't even near him, so why wouldn't they go after the squishy members instead? Yes, a solitary humanoid will be threatened by a Fighter and focus on him, but I almost never fight solitary humanoids. If they don't at least have minions, why are they a threat?

Cheesegear
2008-09-15, 12:59 AM
The Fighter - as a single class - is not worth it. Now, I'm a 2e kid, where the only class that got a decent attack progression was a Fighter, and if you wanted to do melee damage, that's what you would do.

3.x changes all that, with multi-classing being available to anyone and everyone, and most people house-ruling that there are no XP Penalties (although, I'm a fan of XP-Ps because it discourages cherry-picking). Fighter can no longer dish out large amounts of damage. Or, rather, he can, but other people can as well.

You want to deal damage, you play as a Barbarian. You only lose a maximum of 3 AC, but even then, a Chain Shirt gives a higher DEX availabilty that Full Plate. A Barbarian gets more hit points, and a larger skill pool. And on top of that, he gets (Improved) Uncanny Dodge. Which, most fighters would kill to have.
"Look at my super-high AC! Oh...I'm flat-footed. Nevermind."
This is another bonus as most Barbs would have a slightly higher DEX (which gives Initiative too!) than Fighters which negates the fact that they wear less armour. And then later Barbs can't be flanked! Damn! Where do I sign!?
Then factor in DR which lets the Barb absorb more damage, then tack on Trap Sense (a minor ability, but still helpful). Then throw in Indomitable Will (+4 Will Saves? Yes please!).
Even before you factor in Rage, why would you take Fighter?

If you want a Defender/Meat Shield, that's what the Paladin is for. You get better saves (make those Will saves!), and you become immune to fear!
"Oh, hi! I'm a Fighter, I'm a meatshield, my AC is in the high 20s. Oh, a dragon you say? Well, my poor Will save makes me want to run away now..." on top of which you give your allies a bonus to fear effects.
You become immune to disease. Can heal disease. Oh, and don't forget, you can heal hit point damage!
The free mount is always good. Even if you can't use it sometimes. And you get spells...Damn.
The LG-restriction is not as bad as some people make it out to be (your Paladin only needs 'the stick' to be as big as the DMs. Once I had a 'hippie' DM who told me eating meat was 'evil', and my Paladin would Fall if I ate a rabbit...). Always remember; "What your Paladin doesn't know, can't make him Fall." And there are all those 'variant' alignment Paladins out there anyway.

EDIT: Paladins also get a bigger skill-pool, although as many skill points. But, with your high Charisma, and probably a decent Diplomacy skill, you can now be the 'big Front Man' that you want to be.

In short, there's no reason - ever - that you might want to single-class Fighter past maybe Level 8 (good job finding enough 'good' feats to get that far!). Especially if you're playing Core-Only. If you bring in ToB and splatbooks, the Fighter becomes semi-viable. But, with the introduction of splatbooks and ToB, you bring in the Knight/Duskblade/Warblade/etc. Fighter is now in the position of Left Right Out.

Matthew
2008-09-15, 01:17 AM
I totally agree with you on 40K. Man, my Eldar Scouts never were the same...

I still miss the D12 table for the D-Cannon :smallfrown:

I also miss the ability to run away when charged...



The marking is exactly for that purpose. One of the problems with simultaneous combat is that it is nigh impossible for PCs to act in coordination - either the monsters will get a jump on them, or the battle will change somehow before they can act. If you want to have a more team-based combat system, you really have to structure combats a bit more.

Personally, I think 4e has done a good job at structuring combat; I also think D&D works better as a team-based combat system instead of essentially a solo one. It's also a lot easier to keep track of what's going on.

I think 4e has made a good job of structured combat, but I am not all that sure that AD&D (or even 3e) is not a combat system that works best when team based. Some of the stories you hear of people coming back from 3e to AD&D or moving onto C&C do say things like "The party members started doing their own thing and a total party kill was only narrowly averted, more emphasis on teamwork is needed", but I have to say that my D20 games relied on teamwork just as much as my AD&D ones. Of course, I don't really play much above level nine or so in any case, and I tend to "lock down" overpowerful spells, which may colour my view.

J.Gellert
2008-09-15, 03:32 AM
This, I think, highlights the Fail of 3e quite well.

While I am generally loathe to say what is "right" for a given class, does it seem right to anyone that a wizard should be the front line of a battle? Sure, the wizard can throw up wards and such to protect him from mundane harm, but aren't they supposed to be less reliable than the steel of the fighter?


Less reliable than the steel of a fighter - says who? I can think of many scenes in fiction where a wizard or other magical being is very well-protected, way more than a typical human in armor would be.

Just because fighters get heavy armor proficiency, does not mean they are supposed to be good at defense. It depends on how you play your fighter, sure, but in the end, the AC difference between a full-plate fighter with 12 Dex, and a Chainshirt rogue with 18 Dex is only 1 point of armor class. And once you start facing enemies that can turn you to stone, or kill you with a glance, your full-plate proficiency does not even matter.

I hate roles for classes. I don't like people telling me that "Your cleric is a medic" or "your wizard is the controller" or "your fighter is the meatshield". The cleric is the holy warrior, the wizard is the guy who casts spells, and the fighter is the guy who goes toe-to-toe with the monsters.

Now this last thing can be used offensively or defensively, but really, do you remember Aragorn or Boromir trying to "tank" in a 5-foot corridor? Because I recall both of them being rather offensive...

PS. And consider how even real-life tanks (the armored vehicles) are better at offense than defense. :smallamused:

Telonius
2008-09-15, 05:23 AM
EDIT:
@Swordguy - even without metagaming, a sane combatant is going to know the relative strengths of people he meets. In a world where there are wizards, priests, and druids, he will probably know how they operate - or at the very least, he'll be able to see that, yes, it is easier to stab through leather than full plate, and that while the dude with the sword may cut him a few more times, the dude in the robes is going to turn him into a newt!

I don't know about you, but if I had to fight that party, I'd take out the caster first and then book it while Grunty McIronpants slogs after me. I can outrun a dude in full plate - but I'm not sure if I can outrun magic!

Also, the "badger" was the only thing that actually hurt you.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 06:05 AM
Being a warrior is not about being good under specific conditions. It's not about having special or unique abilities. It's about killing less skilled opponents with strength, speed and cunning, and enduring lots of punishment with hardiness and discipline. Training might vary, but the principle is always the same. A Fighter is not supposed to be a "Defender" any more than the modern Soldier is. Their duty might be to civilians, but having to protect other people on the battlefield is a liability. Fighters fight on battlefields to control territory and eliminate targets. They kill, and if you don't slow them down, they'll let you tag along.

In the field of battle, soldiers routinely provide support fire and defense for one another. I really don't get what you're saying - in battle, you're dead alone and your only hope is that you keep your friends alive and they keep you alive. Same applies just as much to infantry combat as it does to air combat. Having to protect something/one on the field of battle means that something/one is probably the reason you're not going to die so you better make damn sure that something/one stays intact.

nagora
2008-09-15, 06:32 AM
The problem with that is that most of the opponents in D&D aren't going to lose fleshy bits to a Fighter. The Dragon? The Fighter is slashing and bouncing off of it's scales. The Ogre? The Fighter's not even considered a threat until he lands a decent blow. A mob of first-level Orcs? Yeah, a couple will get tied up by the Fighter, but the rest aren't even near him, so why wouldn't they go after the squishy members instead? Yes, a solitary humanoid will be threatened by a Fighter and focus on him, but I almost never fight solitary humanoids. If they don't at least have minions, why are they a threat?
But this is just a fact of life: one heavily armoured slow-moving unit can not dominate a combat against multiple fast moving opponents unless the slow unit has a substantial missile capacity.

The solution is to find better tactics than just standing in the open shouting "Fight me! Why won't you fight me!?" a al Highlander.

Use the terrain to funnel opponents onto your sword; get a decent missile weapon; use stealth; or even discard the armour and charge the enemy when they're not expecting it. Best of all: get another bunch of guys together and form a unit that fights together effectively using all these options and others that use formation.

Sure, 3e doesn't support any of this because they made other classes far too common and far too effective, but that's something that needs fixed directly, not patched up with metagame nonsense like marking.

Knaight
2008-09-15, 07:03 AM
Yes its metagame. It allows you to prevent one person in close combat with you to get away by saying, in metagame, that you pay more attention to them. Its pretty much there to compensate for the whole ridiculous turn structure, as a single person, while in close combat, can make life difficult for someone else nearby. If the opponent attacks someone nearby, you get in their way(stabbing them is good here, don't let them pay entire attention to the enemy.), if they try to turn around you swipe at them and force them to block. Thats it. Unless they close to range with you or you use one of those incredibly stupid forced enemy movement without touching them powers, your not even going to get a mark, and thats what the multiple fast guys are going to be doing. They will just run around, out of range, and get to your allies. The funnel and such works here though.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 10:25 AM
Less reliable than the steel of a fighter - says who? I can think of many scenes in fiction where a wizard or other magical being is very well-protected, way more than a typical human in armor would be.

Yeah. See, this is why I don't like to say what classes are "supposed" to be - they're complete constructs of the system, and we can only really infer their purpose from the mechanics of the system. Any other theorizing is just so much waving our hands.

In 2e, Fighters were tough, weaponmasters. If it bleeds, he can kill it.

In 4e, Fighters are combat controllers. They can check anyone who moves within arms reach, and they can pin down individual opponents. They do good damage and have good defense, but they're in there for the long haul.

In 3e? Fighters seemed to be super-specialists; they would develop one or maybe two tactics (feat chains) to the point of mastery and use them, and nothing else. If they got out of their element (say, a Trip Fighter against an untrippable opponent) then they were at a loss.

That's what I get from the Fighter mechanics in each system; take it as you will.

Charity
2008-09-15, 10:30 AM
I thought they were like kerosene in balance debates...
No monks are nitroglycerin

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 10:33 AM
I thought they were like kerosene in balance debates...
No monks are nitroglycerin

Well, yeah, but that's because they ended up being only "specialists" in all of 3e. Casters all had enough "flexibility" to be one-man parties at high levels, which made them a great contrast for the Fighter, who picked up one specialty by level 6, and maybe a second one by 12th.

Monks were just the weakest generalists on the team. I'm not sure what happened with CW Samurai - I guess they were the weakest specialists? :smallconfused:

Person_Man
2008-09-15, 11:04 AM
3.5 D&D is not a video game. Enemies are not hard coded to attack certain players. And players are not required to fill the roles that character abilities immediately lend themselves to. Fighters have a huge amount of flexibility. They can be very adept at damage dealing, tanking, and/or battlefield control. With high Int and a one level dip into Factotum or Rogue, they can be effective Skill Monkeys at well.

Deepblue706
2008-09-15, 12:05 PM
In the field of battle, soldiers routinely provide support fire and defense for one another. I really don't get what you're saying - in battle, you're dead alone and your only hope is that you keep your friends alive and they keep you alive. Same applies just as much to infantry combat as it does to air combat. Having to protect something/one on the field of battle means that something/one is probably the reason you're not going to die so you better make damn sure that something/one stays intact.

Maybe I wasn't very clear. When I was talking about "Defending", it was meant to be in regard to civilians. If you're not fully trained for combat, then you're probably a civilian. That includes just about anyone with less than a full BAB. Sure, they might have talents that redeem them and make them useful, but ultimately, they're putting a Fighter (or other warrior class) in an awkward position, because their ultimate goal is not guard-a-bunch-of-idiots-who-are-useless-in-one-to-one-combat (ie Wizard, Rogue). Their ultimate goal is to kill things or take territory. Thus, the status of "Defender" is awkward, and is not what I deem a proper label for the class of Fighter. A Fighter can defend, can work with others, and will rely upon his allies for assistance in many ways. But, he is not by default someone who guards or defends.

Weiser_Cain
2008-09-15, 12:19 PM
This is my experience.
Being a fighter means you get to be the point man. When trouble rears it's head you charge into melee covered in magical armor wielding a magical blade or three and chop it off. Sure some may do more damage but you make up for that by being able to go into combat more heavily armored and with weapon specializations never mind the other feats you may have pick from all those bonuses.

Maybe that an unsophisticated view as I never made any of those odd fighter builds in the very few times I played one but it worked for me, I was certainly more confident as a low level fighter than a wizard.

Crow
2008-09-15, 12:44 PM
In the field of battle, soldiers routinely provide support fire and defense for one another. I really don't get what you're saying - in battle, you're dead alone and your only hope is that you keep your friends alive and they keep you alive. Same applies just as much to infantry combat as it does to air combat. Having to protect something/one on the field of battle means that something/one is probably the reason you're not going to die so you better make damn sure that something/one stays intact.

On the field of battle, the enemy is going to shoot at, or swing at, the best available target of opportunity, 9 times out of 10. Your protection is your own business. If you waltz around out of cover, expect to get shot at by the archer.

Soldiers do not provide defense for one another unless you are in a battle line holding shields in front of you or some similar situation. That is just one of the reasons why breaking the enemy's formation was so important. Likewise, providing support fire or cover fire is not a defensive action. You are firing at the enemy, or at least putting rounds into his cover at a steady pace to make him think twice about poking his head out. If he sticks his head out, that was his poor decision. He was the easy target of opportunity, and nobody but him is responsible for his "defense".

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 12:50 PM
So, while I'm all for discussing the "realities" of medieval combat, perhaps we should focus on what the purpose of the 3e Fighter was, and if the Fighter fulfilled that purpose in practice. I'm fairly sure everyone here is using mere conjecture when talking about how such combat actually functioned - SCA experience or not :smalltongue:

Additionally, we can discuss whether it is reasonable to have a class devoted to protecting his teammates in melee - which includes the question of whether the Paladin makes sense as a Defender if the Fighter does not.

nagora
2008-09-15, 01:03 PM
So, while I'm all for discussing the "realities" of medieval combat, perhaps we should focus on what the purpose of the 3e Fighter was, and if the Fighter fulfilled that purpose in practice. I'm fairly sure everyone here is using mere conjecture when talking about how such combat actually functioned - SCA experience or not :smalltongue:

Additionally, we can discuss whether it is reasonable to have a class devoted to protecting his teammates in melee - which includes the question of whether the Paladin makes sense as a Defender if the Fighter does not.
But that all brings us back to the more fundimental question of what a class is. If you name a class and I don't get a mental image of what that class represents in terms of the character then I maintain that it should not be a class. "Defender" means nothing to me in terms of what the character is - give me a class name that evokes something from fantasy literature or movies, something that suggests that the class is a way of life rather than a tactic.

Paladin means something (even if I had to look it up when I was 14). Cleric is the loosest of the classic classes, but even there if someone said "Cleric of Thor" I think we'd all have a bit of an idea what sort of person they are going to be. But combat roles are far too limited to be the foundation of the entire class concept, IMO.

Fighters fight, magic users use magic, clerics serve gods, and thieves steal things while trying to avoid detection and combat (if they don't avoid combat then they're called bandits).

Are "Bandit" and "Fighter" two separate things or is the first just an example of the latter? depends on the campaign, I think. Just as, in one campaign I like the post-UA definition of Paladins and Cavaliers as separate from Fighters, whereas in my other one I keep Paladins as types of fighters and don't have Cavaliers at all.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 01:11 PM
The main role of the fighter is to be an easily-tailored melee combatant. He's easy to multiclass and his class features pretty much consist of selectable feats. Using multiclassing and feat selection it's possible to roughly simulate any other melee class or concept with the fighter.

Now, as for the stereotypical single-class fighter, the problem I see here is that people are assuming too much metagame thought on the part of the DM when wondering what the fighter's role is.

The DMs job is to play the creature as it sees the world, not try to beat the PCs using monsters as playing pieces. The enemy should make decisions as it sees the world, not in terms of the game rules.

Moving past the fighter/paladin/barbarian to attack the caster means, from the attacker's perspective, a guy witha big sword is now behind him. Yes, I know there is no facing in 3.5, but creatures should not be thinking in terms of game rules. The prospect of leaving a man with a greatsword to attack unmolested should be pretty daunting to most creatures, unless they posess overwhelming physical superiority in their own view, or are unable to understand the risks.

The same applies to hitpoints; the DM and players know they are abstract, but the monsters should not behave as if they have a pool of hitpoints to play with. They should be trying to avoid harm, because it hurts and they could die.

The fighter doesn't need an aggro/attack me mechanism, beyond flanking. His weapon is that mechanism. A creature that ignores that for metagame reasons is a poorly played one, and indicates the DM is taking an adversarial role against the party. Monsters should employ tactics according to the situation as they see it, not according to the DMs understanding of the game rules.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 01:14 PM
But that all brings us back to the more fundimental question of what a class is. If you name a class and I don't get a mental image of what that class represents in terms of the character then I maintain that it should not be a class. "Defender" means nothing to me in terms of what the character is - give me a class name that evokes something from fantasy literature or movies, something that suggests that the class is a way of life rather than a tactic.

Does Defender really evoke nothing in you?

Anyhow, this also gets into the problem of cultural canons. As we can see from this thread, "Fighter" means very different things to different people, as does "Wizard" or "Rogue." Hell, "Ranger" would mean very different things to you depending on whether you have read LotR or not!

As such, I don't think that's really the best way to determine the role of a class. I've put up an examination of the mechanics presented within a system as a different rubric, and I think it's probably a better way to judge a system. That said, I would also include the fluff text description of a class as valid evidence as to the intended purpose of the class; if the designers found fit to include explanatory text to reveal their aims, I say it should be taken into consideration.

Anyone got a 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e PHB they'd like to skim? :smalltongue:

Frosty
2008-09-15, 01:25 PM
Maybe I wasn't very clear. When I was talking about "Defending", it was meant to be in regard to civilians. If you're not fully trained for combat, then you're probably a civilian. That includes just about anyone with less than a full BAB. Sure, they might have talents that redeem them and make them useful, but ultimately, they're putting a Fighter (or other warrior class) in an awkward position, because their ultimate goal is not guard-a-bunch-of-idiots-who-are-useless-in-one-to-one-combat (ie Wizard, Rogue). Their ultimate goal is to kill things or take territory. Thus, the status of "Defender" is awkward, and is not what I deem a proper label for the class of Fighter. A Fighter can defend, can work with others, and will rely upon his allies for assistance in many ways. But, he is not by default someone who guards or defends.

The entire premise of DnD says you that've got 3 Civvies to defend at all times during your adventure.

Fighter - Full BAB
Cleric - 3/4
Rogur - 3/4
Wizard - 1/2

You're the only trained soldier in the iconic 4-person party, so you *better* get used to protecting the Civvies.

Lapak
2008-09-15, 01:27 PM
Maybe I wasn't very clear. When I was talking about "Defending", it was meant to be in regard to civilians. If you're not fully trained for combat, then you're probably a civilian. That includes just about anyone with less than a full BAB. Sure, they might have talents that redeem them and make them useful, but ultimately, they're putting a Fighter (or other warrior class) in an awkward position, because their ultimate goal is not guard-a-bunch-of-idiots-who-are-useless-in-one-to-one-combat (ie Wizard, Rogue). Their ultimate goal is to kill things or take territory. Thus, the status of "Defender" is awkward, and is not what I deem a proper label for the class of Fighter. A Fighter can defend, can work with others, and will rely upon his allies for assistance in many ways. But, he is not by default someone who guards or defends.Since we're talking about real-ish analogues... the Fighter is very much appropriate for a defender role. Let's take the closest approximations we can. The fighter, as you point out, has a real representation: the soldier on the field. To make things clearer, let's call him a whole squadron of heavy infantry on a battlefield. They deal damage, and in the end they're the ones that occupy enemy territory. But they need support.

The closest thing to a D&D rogue would be, probably, light cavalry - mobile and can hit hard under the right circumstances, but can't stand up to a solid assault. The wizard comes closest to artillery, or a squad of archers - able to pin down/immobilize a foe or to destroy them from a distance, but vulnerable up close. The cleric is the medical corps. They're all valuable, all necessary for victory, all essential to a combined-arms approach to battle, but the fighter has to keep the enemy's focus off of them if he wants to succeed, and in some cases that's the whole effort - to grab hold of the enemy and expose the flank to a cavalry charge, or hold them on a slope while the archers rain death down, and certainly to keep enemy forces out of the supply and medical tents so wounded people have somewhere to go. In essence, the other classes aren't civilians, they're specialized troops.

(Of course, the problem that 3e runs into is that the infantry isn't necessary; it's like the artillery brigade is rolling around in a castle and the surgeons are all armored knights themselves.)

Crow
2008-09-15, 01:28 PM
The only way to keep "civilians" safe from combat is to direct them to stay in cover, well away from it. This idea of battlefield protection is absurd.

But I seriously doubt the other classes in an adventuring party could be considered "civilians" at all. They are highly-trained adventurers, just with different specialties.

nagora
2008-09-15, 01:29 PM
Does Defender really evoke nothing in you?
No, unless you count the video game, which was a classic.


That said, I would also include the fluff text description of a class as valid evidence as to the intended purpose of the class; if the designers found fit to include explanatory text to reveal their aims, I say it should be taken into consideration.

Anyone got a 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e PHB they'd like to skim? :smalltongue:



Cleric
This class of character bears a certain resemblance to religious orders of knighthood of medieval times.

Druid
Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest. They hold trees (particularly oak and ash), the sun, and the moon as deities. Mistletoe is the holy symbol of druids, and it gives power to their spells. They have an obligation to protect trees and wild plants, crops, and to a lesser extent, their human followers and animals. Thus, druids will never destroy woodlands or crops no matter what the circumstances. Even though a woods, for example, were evilly hostile, druids would not destroy it, although nothing would prevent them from changing the nature of the place if the desire and wherewithal existed. In similar fashion, they avoid slaying wild animals or even domestic ones except as necessary for self preservation and sustenance.

Fighter
Fighters ore the strongest of characters in regards to sheer physical strength, and they are the best at hand-to-hand combat

Paladin
Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins

Ranger
Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying.

Magic User
Magic-users draw upon arcane powers in order to exercise their profession. While they have mighty spells of offensive, defensive, and informational nature, magic-users are very weak in combat.

Illusionist
Didn't really get any description in 1e; the name was enough

Thief
Thieves are principally meant to take by cunning and stealth.

Assassin
Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal).
The primary function of assassins is killing.

Monk
Monks are monastic aesthetics who practice rigorous mental and physical training and discipline in order to become superior. Therefore they must always be lawful in alignment, although they can be evil, good, or neutral with respect to their approach to lawfulness.

Not a lot, is it? But, then the names were very clear by and large; most people don't need to be told what a thief is!

Frosty
2008-09-15, 01:33 PM
The point is, the 3.5 Fighter name is misleading because unl;ess you know absolutely well what you're doing, your "Fighter" is going to feel more like a civilian when standing next to the Warforged Druid who shaped into a building, the Wizard who just turned his Familiar into a Balor, and the Cleric who also wears full-plate and can last longer in battle thanks to healing and magic.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 01:42 PM
Not a lot, is it? But, then the names were very clear by and large; most people don't need to be told what a thief is!

Yep, which is why I said go with mechanics first, and fluff second. By and large, the classes didn't require much explanation (like you said, everyone knows what a thief is!) though without a little background, it might not be obvious that a Paladin is an armored warrior from that description alone. It gets a little recursive too - I know Paladins are armored warriors because fantasy RPGs portray Paladins as such; Paladins are so portrayed as such in fantasy RPGs because D&D has always portrayed them as such :smallamused:

So, it sounds like 1e Fighters have a good, clear description and do it well, right? They are the strongest at hand-to-hand combat and the brawniest of their party members, right? Rangers are less strong and focus on being sneaky more than being brawny.

Here's the 3.0 Fighter fluff

The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king - all are fighters. Fighters can be stalwart defenders of those in need, cruel marauders, or gutsy adventurers. Some are among the land's best souls, willing to face death for the greater good. Others are among the worst, those who have no qualms about killing for private gain, or even for sport. Fighters who are not actively adventuring may be soldiers, guards, bodyguards, champions, or criminal enforcers. An adventuring fighter might call himself a warrior, a mercenary, a thug, or simply an adventurer.

Hmmm, not much of an improvement, eh? But evocative, yes? Now, Characteristics:

Of all the classes, fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities (hence the name). Fighters are familiar with all standard weapons and armors. In addition to general fighting prowess, each fighter develops particular specialties of his or her own. A given fighter may be especially capable with certain weapons, another trained to execute specific fancy maneuvers. As fighters gain experience, they get more opportunities to develop their fighting skills. Thanks to their focus on combat maneuvers, they can master the most difficult ones relatively quickly

Fluff-wise, they seem to be generalist weapon wielders, who can either specialize in some weapons or in "fancy manuevers." It is questionable whether they have the best "all-around fighting capabilities" though.

Anyone got 4e or 2e on hand?

Starsinger
2008-09-15, 01:51 PM
Fighters are determined combat adepts trained to protect the other members of their adventuring groups. Fighters define the front line by bashing and slicing foes into submission while reflecting enemy attacks through the use of heavy armor. Fighters draw weapons for gold, for glory, for duty, and for the mere joy of unrestrained martial exercise.

Regardless of your level of skill and the specific weapons you eventually master, your motivations determine who you defend and who you slay. You could be a noble champion who pledges your blade to gallant causes, a calculating mercenary who cares more for the clink of gold than praise, a homeless prince on the run from assassins, or a blood-loving thug looking for the next good fight.

Your future is yours. When you unsheathe your weapon, what battle cry flies from your lips?

There ya go

Wolfpack
2008-09-15, 01:52 PM
The fighter doesn't need an aggro/attack me mechanism, beyond flanking. His weapon is that mechanism. A creature that ignores that for metagame reasons is a poorly played one, and indicates the DM is taking an adversarial role against the party. Monsters should employ tactics according to the situation as they see it, not according to the DMs understanding of the game rules.

An intelligent creature that ignores the Wizard casting spells that instantly kill it in favor of some punk with a sword that probably can't even penetrate it's skin is being poorly played.

Dragon: "Hmm, this guy has a toothpick which if he buried it to the hilt in my stomach wouldn't even reach a single organ. On the other hand, that Wizard is casting Finger of Death, a spell which just plain kills people. Better attack the toothpick."

Replace Dragon with Demon/Devil if you like, it's still the same thing, no reason to give special consideration to the wimpy sword guy over magic.

On a sidenote, what's all this nonsense about thieves? I thought the whole reason they became Rogues was because thieves suck in D&D, since everything they do is in no way involved in the actions of others, whereas Rogues are awesome fighters and badasses.

Matthew
2008-09-15, 01:54 PM
Anyone got 4e or 2e on hand?


AD&D 1e Player's Handbook


Fighters ore the strongest of characters in regards to sheer physical strength, and they are the best at hand-to-hand combat


AD&D 2e Player's Handbook


The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy. There are many famous fighter from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these, or he could be unique. A visit to your local library can uncover many heroic fighters.


D20 3e Player's handbook (much abridged)


The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king - all are fighters. Fighters can be stalwart defenders of those in need, cruel marauders, or gutsy adventurers. Some are among the land's best souls, willing to face death for the greater good. Others are among the worst, those who have no qualms about killing for private gain, or even for sport. Fighters who are not actively adventuring may be soldiers, guards, bodyguards, champions, or criminal enforcers. An adventuring fighter might call himself a warrior, a mercenary, a thug, or simply an adventurer.

Adventures: Most fighters see adventures, raids, and dangerous missions as their job. Some have patrons who pay them regularly. Others prefer to live like prospectors, taking great risks in hopes of the big haul. Some fighters are more civic-minded and use their combat skills to protect endangered people who cannot defend themselves. Whatever their initial motivations, however, fighters often wind up living for the thrill of combat and adventure.

Characteristics: Of all the classes, fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities (hence the name). Fighters are familiar with all standard weapons and armors. In addition to general fighting prowess, each fighter develops particular specialties of his or her own. A given fighter may be especially capable with certain weapons, another trained to execute specific fancy maneuvers. As fighters gain experience, they get more opportunities to develop their fighting skills. Thanks to their focus on combat maneuvers, they can master the most difficult ones relatively quickly.

Role: In most adventuring parties, the fighter serves as a melee combatant, charging into the fray while his comrades support him with spells, ranged attacks, and other effects. Fighters who favor ranged combat can prove very deadly, though without other melee support, they can find themselves in front-line combat more often than they might prefer.


D20 4e Player's Handbook


Fighters are determined combat adepts trained to protect the other members of their adventuring groups. Fighters define the front line by bashing and slicing foes into submission while reflecting enemy attacks through the use of heavy armor. Fighters draw weapons for gold, for glory, for duty, and for the mere joy of unrestrained martial exercise.

Regardless of your level of skill and the specific weapons you eventually master, your motivations determine who you defend and who you slay. You could be a noble champion who pledges your blade to gallant causes, a calculating mercenary who cares more for the clink of gold than praise, a homeless prince on the run from assassins, or a blood-loving thug looking for the next good fight.

Your future is yours. When you unsheathe your weapon, what battle cry flies from your lips?


[edit] Darn, Starsinger beat me to it; maybe I'll just present them all alongside...

I actually quite like the extensive 3e character class descriptions in the core books; for the most part, I think they were well written.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 01:56 PM
Creatures of low intelligence and/or very low HD/levels would most likely panic and act not very intelligently. However, when you're level 13 and you face level 13 opponents, chances are, they've GOT the experience to know whot o kill int he battlefield. You don't get to level 13 witout knowing how to deal with adventuring parties trying to kill you. You've SURVIVED those attacks, and that's why you're the BBEG of the dungeon.

Sholos
2008-09-15, 01:59 PM
Now, as for the stereotypical single-class fighter, the problem I see here is that people are assuming too much metagame thought on the part of the DM when wondering what the fighter's role is.

The DMs job is to play the creature as it sees the world, not try to beat the PCs using monsters as playing pieces. The enemy should make decisions as it sees the world, not in terms of the game rules.

Moving past the fighter/paladin/barbarian to attack the caster means, from the attacker's perspective, a guy witha big sword is now behind him. Yes, I know there is no facing in 3.5, but creatures should not be thinking in terms of game rules. The prospect of leaving a man with a greatsword to attack unmolested should be pretty daunting to most creatures, unless they posess overwhelming physical superiority in their own view, or are unable to understand the risks.

The same applies to hitpoints; the DM and players know they are abstract, but the monsters should not behave as if they have a pool of hitpoints to play with. They should be trying to avoid harm, because it hurts and they could die.

The fighter doesn't need an aggro/attack me mechanism, beyond flanking. His weapon is that mechanism. A creature that ignores that for metagame reasons is a poorly played one, and indicates the DM is taking an adversarial role against the party. Monsters should employ tactics according to the situation as they see it, not according to the DMs understanding of the game rules.

QFT. I wholly agree with this post. Too many people have begun viewing D&D as some sort of video game where everything inside of it knows the rules and exploits them to their advantage. People have forgotten how to really roleplay, especially when it comes to monsters.

As far as marking, I like the idea. It makes perfect sense, unless you want to believe that in a fight your guy is just standing there watching other people move around. Here's a challenge. Grab two friends. Set one up as the target. Set the other guy up with something he can hit someone with without hurting them. Do the same for yourself. Put this guy between you and the target guy. Now, your job is (as you would in the game) to get to the target and hit him. You are only allowed four solid contacts by the other guy, and you need two solid contacts on the target.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 02:03 PM
Gosh, the changes in fluff really is enlightening, isn't it?

In 1e, it seemed to be a pure combat role. If it bled, you could kill it.

In 2e, they tried to frame it in a more historical context. You don't just kill things, but you use your sword arm to do great deeds!

In 3e, you're just a guy with a sword again, but this time you're supposed to specialize in particular weapons or fancy manuevers (feat chains).

In 4e, you are explicitly defined as the front-line of the party, trained in the defense of others.

Well, now we need to figure out how well each system followed its fluff! FOR SCIENCE!

EDIT:

QFT. I wholly agree with this post. Too many people have begun viewing D&D as some sort of video game where everything inside of it knows the rules and exploits them to their advantage. People have forgotten how to really roleplay, especially when it comes to monsters.

Is it superior roleplaying to make monsters afraid of swords if they actually have no reason to be afraid of them? If so, why?

Frosty
2008-09-15, 02:07 PM
It's good rp-ing for level 1 goblins to be afraid of swords to be certain. they'd want to stay back and fire darts or something. It's also good rp-ing for the Pit Fiend to laugh at the pointy stick and go Full-Attack on the magic user.

Sholos
2008-09-15, 02:07 PM
An intelligent creature that ignores the Wizard casting spells that instantly kill it in favor of some punk with a sword that probably can't even penetrate it's skin is being poorly played.

Dragon: "Hmm, this guy has a toothpick which if he buried it to the hilt in my stomach wouldn't even reach a single organ. On the other hand, that Wizard is casting Finger of Death, a spell which just plain kills people. Better attack the toothpick."

Replace Dragon with Demon/Devil if you like, it's still the same thing, no reason to give special consideration to the wimpy sword guy over magic.

On a sidenote, what's all this nonsense about thieves? I thought the whole reason they became Rogues was because thieves suck in D&D, since everything they do is in no way involved in the actions of others, whereas Rogues are awesome fighters and badasses.

Did you not read his post? Of course the dragon who ignores the wizard for the fighter isn't being played correctly. That's what he said! He didn't say, "All monsters should focus on the Fighter first." He said that different monsters are going to have different priorities, and that the DM should play them as such.


Is it superior roleplaying to make monsters afraid of swords if they actually have no reason to be afraid of them? If so, why?

Give me a specific monster and I'll tell you. Otherwise, see the rest of my post.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 02:09 PM
An intelligent creature that ignores the Wizard casting spells that instantly kill it in favor of some punk with a sword that probably can't even penetrate it's skin is being poorly played.

First of all, the assertion that the fighter "can't penetrate its skin" is wildly unsupported assumption.

Second, if the wizard instantly killed it, it's already dead and the point is moot.

Third, the creature may or may not know that the wizard's spells can instantly kill it, the wizard may or may not have such spells, and if he does, the creature may or may not be prepared to accept the risk of a longsword in the gut to get at him. Most creatures have less-than-completely-rational decision processes.


Dragon: "Hmm, this guy has a toothpick which if he buried it to the hilt in my stomach wouldn't even reach a single organ. On the other hand, that Wizard is casting Finger of Death, a spell which just plain kills people. Better attack the toothpick."

The dragon falls into that category of creatures I mentioned with overwhelming physical superiority. Not every creature is adragon or somethig similar


Replace Dragon with Demon/Devil if you like, it's still the same thing, no reason to give special consideration to the wimpy sword guy over magic.

More in the overwhelming superiority category.

I didn't state this as an absolute "no creature will ever try to get past the fighter to attack a wizard". I stated that if the creature is doing so for metagame reasons, the DM is playing in an adversarial fashion.

Not every combat is against opponents like dragons, demons, or devils where one BBEG with massive confidence in its personal power confront the party alone. Taking such obvious examples of creatures that can wade past the fighter with impunity from an in-character perspective and representing them as a reason why most or all opponents should use the same tactics, is simply assuming situations to support a certain idea.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 02:09 PM
On the field of battle, the enemy is going to shoot at, or swing at, the best available target of opportunity, 9 times out of 10. Your protection is your own business. If you waltz around out of cover, expect to get shot at by the archer.

Soldiers do not provide defense for one another unless you are in a battle line holding shields in front of you or some similar situation. That is just one of the reasons why breaking the enemy's formation was so important. Likewise, providing support fire or cover fire is not a defensive action. You are firing at the enemy, or at least putting rounds into his cover at a steady pace to make him think twice about poking his head out. If he sticks his head out, that was his poor decision. He was the easy target of opportunity, and nobody but him is responsible for his "defense".

You're protecting the "siege engines" (Wizards), the "field hospitals" (Clerics) and "the engineers" (Rogues) and even the archers, not civilians. Isn't that precisely what medieval soldiers did on the field in the first place? Basically, you aren't the unit with the most firepower, but you've got a solid mix of firepower and durability and generally you're the thing standing between the more powerful, less durable targets and the opponent's blades and arrows.

nightwyrm
2008-09-15, 02:15 PM
QFT. I wholly agree with this post. Too many people have begun viewing D&D as some sort of video game where everything inside of it knows the rules and exploits them to their advantage. People have forgotten how to really roleplay, especially when it comes to monsters.

Why wouldn't people/creatures who lives inside of the game verse know about the rules of that game verse and use it to their advantage? It's the players who don't know or misunderstand how the game verse actually works and tries to apply knowledge gained from the real world or literature that creates the problem. It's like saying that ignoring the guy with a sword and trying to kill the dude with the machine gun first is a bad thing in the real world.

Literature is filled with the imagery of a badass sword guy because it's easier for readers (most of whom are not wizards) to identify with a sword swinging protagonist than one who can wipe out whole battalions of sword swinging guys with a few words. This disconnect between expectation from myth/literature and the realities of the D&D game verse is what causes the confusion over fighters.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 02:20 PM
Give me a specific monster and I'll tell you. Otherwise, see the rest of my post.

Why do you need a specific monster?

I gave you a simple proposition:

IF Monster has no reason to be afraid of Threat A, THEN monster should be threatened by Threat A, for RP purposes.

Is that a true proposition? Also:


IF Monster is more concerned with Threat B than Threat A, THEN Monster is more threatened by Threat A than Threat B, for RP purposes.

But if you want, I'll throw up the Pit Fiend.

Should a Pit Fiend be more concerned with a 20th level Fighter or a 20th level Wizard; or for RP friendly purposes - should he be more concerned with a guy in magic full plate and a magic large shield and a magic longsword, or should be more concerned with the dude in back with ion stones, a fancy looking robe, and a magic staff? Which would he attack first, assuming that he wasn't going to be flying (and neither was the wizard).

Or a little lower leveled: Would the Hill Giant attack the dude in the armor first, or the dude in robes first? And why?

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 02:21 PM
Why wouldn't people/creatures who lives inside of the game verse know about the rules of that game verse and use it to their advantage? It's the players who don't know or misunderstand how the game verse actually works and tries to apply knowledge gained from the real world or literature that creates the problem. It's like saying that ignoring the guy with a sword and attacking the dude with the machine gun is a bad thing in the real world.

Um, no, it's not. People inside the game world will only know the rules to the extent of their ability to observe them empirically. We don't know all the rules of the real universe.

Different people and creatures will have different levels of experience with different aspects of the game world, and their decisions will be affected by that, as well as their predjudices, preconceptions, intelligence, culture, and a host of other factors. In real life, decisions are often made on less-than-rational reasons, even in combat. In World War I, generals continued to attack in the face of the incredible defensive power of the machine gun, because that was how it was always done. Even when they could see how poorly it worked, they still did it.

I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't be so eager to turn your back on a guy with a sword 5 feet away from you in order to attack a real machinegunner, if you knew the guy with the sword waould try to stick you with it.


Literature is filled with the imagery of a badass sword guy because it's easier for readers (most of whom are not wizards) to identify with a sword swinging protagonist than one who can wipe out whole battalions of sword swinging guys with a few words. This disconnect between expectation from myth/literature and the realities of the D&D game verse is what causes the confusion over fighters.

The disconnect comes in when the DM starts playing the monsters/antagonists without considering the limits of their ability to understand their own world. This is going to be different for each creature the party encounters.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 02:23 PM
Or a little lower leveled: Would the Hill Giant attack the dude in the armor first, or the dude in robes first? And why?

"Little man have sword! Sword sharp! Sharp sword hurt Grog! Man with sword closer than man with staff! Grog smash man with sword, then eat tasty man with no armor at leisure!"

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 02:26 PM
Different people and creatures will have different levels of experience with different aspects of the game world, and their decisions will be affected by that, as well as their predjudices, preconceptions, intelligence, culture, and a host of other factors. In real life, decisions are often made on less-than-rational reasons, even in combat. In World War I, generals continued to attack in the face of the incredible defensive power of the machine gun, because that was how it was always done. Even when they could see how poorly it worked, they still did it.

I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't be so eager to turn your back on a guy with a sword 5 feet away from you in order to attack a real machinegunner, if you knew the guy with the sword waould try to stick you with it.

It also helps that the WWI officers didn't lead the charges into the face of the machine guns. In D&D, we're talking about monsters that regularly fight, and probably know something about wizards (at least in the default setting). If you want to play it otherwise, that's fine, but it doesn't make much sense for, say, a warband of goblins that regularly tangles with adventurers to not charge the wizard and ignore the fighter whenever possible.

Heck, it always makes sense to kill the lightly-armored, high value targets first. Always - they're easier to kill and worth more to your enemy.

EDIT:

"Little man have sword! Sword sharp! Sharp sword hurt Grog! Man with sword closer than man with staff! Grog smash man with sword, then eat tasty man with no armor at leisure!"

"Aaaaaaaaa! Grog paralyzed by little man! Wish Grog had listened to Thug who said that little man with robes is dangerous!"

Natural selection works strongly against such monsters :smallamused:

arguskos
2008-09-15, 02:26 PM
Should a Pit Fiend be more concerned with a 20th level Fighter or a 20th level Wizard; or for RP friendly purposes - should he be more concerned with a guy in magic full plate and a magic large shield and a magic longsword, or should be more concerned with the dude in back with ion stones, a fancy looking robe, and a magic staff? Which would he attack first, assuming that he wasn't going to be flying (and neither was the wizard).
Depends. My bet? The dude in armor, to begin with. Once the robed guy proves he is a relevant threat, then him, if the armor guy hasn't proved to be a bigger threat. It's threat analysis here. Pit Fiends are smart enough to attack those things that are clear and present dangers, not what MAY be a danger, since they are also smart enough to realize their natural defenses may stop the robed guy, but may not stop the armor guy.


Or a little lower leveled: Would the Hill Giant attack the dude in the armor first, or the dude in robes first? And why?
Same as above. Armor first, since he is the clear and present threat. If the robes guy proves to be scarier than the sword guy, then screw armor-man, and pound the robes guy into the dirt, then focus on the next threat.

To me, this is about threat analysis in the present situation. Of course, others may disagree, and that's fine. If you're having fun, great.

-argus

Frosty
2008-09-15, 02:27 PM
The disagreement is over exactly how skilled and smart the opponents are. I tend to play that the higher the opponent's level, the msarter play (in general) because they've *seen* it all.


I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't be so eager to turn your back on a guy with a sword 5 feet away from you in order to attack a real machinegunner, if you knew the guy with the sword waould try to stick you with it.

I do sword-fighting in real life. In 5 on 5 fights where we actually have organized lines, if I were the skirmisher, I'd often try to lure the other skirmisher out, and then ditch him and run STRAIGHT for the back of the enemy line.

I'd do it in a way to not get hit. In game terms. I tumbled successfully to move on to a higher value target.

Starsinger
2008-09-15, 02:28 PM
Heck, it always makes sense to kill the lightly-armored, high value targets first. Always - they're easier to kill and worth more to your enemy.

Value aside, it tends to make sense to kill the less protected targets first anyways. Atleast, to me it does.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 02:30 PM
Value aside, it tends to make sense to kill the less protected targets first anyways. Atleast, to me it does.

Well... not if the light-armored types aren't actually a threat. Chewing up cannon fodder to let the enemy champion run amok is not a good idea. However, taking down the enemy's Glass Cannon before it fires is always a good idea.

Why do people think that monsters should always take the hard road for good RP, while adventurers always take the easy way, for good RP?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 02:32 PM
Depends. My bet? The dude in armor, to begin with. Once the robed guy proves he is a relevant threat, then him, if the armor guy hasn't proved to be a bigger threat. It's threat analysis here. Pit Fiends are smart enough to attack those things that are clear and present dangers, not what MAY be a danger, since they are also smart enough to realize their natural defenses may stop the robed guy, but may not stop the armor guy.

I'd say that Pit Fiends always go for wizards, since they can cast Dismissal and other such spells which can instantly remove the Pit Fiend from combat. Pit Fiends should know this (who summons them anyways?).

But yeah, I agree with threat assessments. Funny enough, that requires monsters to not be spawned, tabula rasa, with no knowledge of their enemy's combat capabilities - particularly if those combat capabilities are telegraphed by their physical appearance!

Frosty
2008-09-15, 02:33 PM
Beginning adventurers might make dumb mistakes too, and the players should NOT make the most optimal decisions all the time, for the sake of rp.

But again, as levels go up, monster cunning goes up. ZugZug the level 3 Orc Barbarian might not be smart enough to go for the puny guy in robes first when there is honor to be had by smashing the knight in full plate. Ogrimm Doomhammer the Bard1/Marshal3/Barbarian8, however, might know enough to order his men to concentrate on mr pointy-hat with staff of power.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 02:36 PM
Depends. My bet? The dude in armor, to begin with. Once the robed guy proves he is a relevant threat, then him, if the armor guy hasn't proved to be a bigger threat. It's threat analysis here. Pit Fiends are smart enough to attack those things that are clear and present dangers, not what MAY be a danger, since they are also smart enough to realize their natural defenses may stop the robed guy, but may not stop the armor guy.

Pit Fiends are incredibly intelligent. They are capable of much more than just an analysis based on clothes. They also know just how powerful magic is (in the game world) seeing that they're magic incarnates themselves and they know that a sword is a mere distraction by comparison, while a few words from the robed man can be the end of him. Why would he ever in a billion years attack the man with a sword first when it's extremely likely the sword can't even touch him? I mean, he has the experience, the intelligence and the wisdom that far exceeds mortal minds like yours and mine (D&D Wizards can exceed them, but only through the use of Magic the most intelligent D&D Human without Magic would have Int 26, and that's venerable with 18 to start with and the exp of an epic hero) - he's far smarter than to make misassessments.


Same as above. Armor first, since he is the clear and present threat. If the robes guy proves to be scarier than the sword guy, then screw armor-man, and pound the robes guy into the dirt, then focus on the next threat.

To me, this is about threat analysis in the present situation. Of course, others may disagree, and that's fine. If you're having fun, great.

-argus

Except a Hill Giant will probably have experienced that swords can't even harm him (if he's fought average Humans, that is level 1 Warriors/Commoners before, he'll have noticed that his skin is so thick they can't even penetrate it and since people of those levels make up like 99% of the D&D populance, it's very likely those are all he's ever faced). On the other hand, if he's ever fought any casters (level 1 Adepts/Wizards/whatever), he knows that spells hurt (even Magic Missile deals damage while sword is like to just bounce off his skin). If he's been exposed to magic in his own community (and what being wouldn't be in D&D world, which again features some kinds of casters in just about every community?), he'll know how powerful it is. If the robed man in any way identifies himself as capable of casting spells, I'd wager any Hill Giant would first go for it and finish the trivial guy with the sword later.

Starsinger
2008-09-15, 02:37 PM
Beginning adventurers might make dumb mistakes too, and the players should NOT make the most optimal decisions all the time, for the sake of rp.

But again, as levels go up, monster cunning goes up. ZugZug the level 3 Orc Barbarian might not be smart enough to go for the puny guy in robes first when there is honor to be had by smashing the knight in full plate. Ogrimm Doomhammer the Bard1/Marshal3/Barbarian8, however, might know enough to order his men to concentrate on mr pointy-hat with staff of power.

Hehe first of all you had me at ZugZug. Second of all Ogrimm Doomhammer is a Warlord, none of that Bard/Marshal/Barbarian stuff :smalltongue:

arguskos
2008-09-15, 02:40 PM
I'd say that Pit Fiends always go for wizards, since they can cast Dismissal and other such spells which can instantly remove the Pit Fiend from combat. Pit Fiends should know this (who summons them anyways?).

But yeah, I agree with threat assessments. Funny enough, that requires monsters to not be spawned, tabula rasa, with no knowledge of their enemy's combat capabilities - particularly if those combat capabilities are telegraphed by their physical appearance!
That's up to the DM in question (about Pit Fiends, and similar critters). Frankly, at those levels, it's completely possible that the armored guy can deal enough damage to the Pit Fiend to sunder his ass back to a Lemure. Why WOULDN'T the Pit Fiend do something about that?

Really, threat assessment is the only way to play monsters. If you have something with idiot-level Int, yeah, it's working on a "it hit me, smash it" level. An average score critter might make a guess, and adjust accordingly. Once you hit higher levels, and smarter critters, then you get to start saying "smack the fleshy one first, he's probably an arcanist and will turn me into goo if I don't smack him!"


Why do people think that monsters should always take the hard road for good RP, while adventurers always take the easy way, for good RP?
This may just be me, but I don't really think adventurers should get to take the easy way and have it be called good RP. Play your damn CHARACTER, not their RULE BLOCK. Characters are meant to be people, not rulebooks. Sorry, pet peeve of mine. :smallredface: /rant


Ogrimm Doomhammer the Bard1/Marshal3/Barbarian8
Ogrimm never struck me as a Bard. :smalltongue: Also, "FOR DOOMHAMMER!!" /obligatory WC3 reference

-argus

EDIT:

If the robed man in any way identifies himself as capable of casting spells, I'd wager any Hill Giant would first go for it and finish the trivial guy with the sword later.
See, that's the key bit, and is what I said (in less eloquent wording, to be fair). IF the robed guy shows he is capable of harming the Hill Giant, then he's priority #1. Otherwise, crush the big man with the big sword, if only because swords are sharp, and when they hit, they hurt a lot. Hill Giants aren't paragons of intelligence here, and probably would work on a "did it hurt me? If yes, crush it. If no, crush something that hurt me. If nothing has, crush whatevers convenient." :smallwink:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 02:40 PM
Hehe first of all you had me at ZugZug. Second of all Ogrimm Doomhammer is a Warlord, none of that Bard/Marshal/Barbarian stuff :smalltongue:

I once had a BBEG have a pair of amoral Half-Orc Barbarian bodyguards named Gork and Mork. Nobody could tell them apart, and they had deceptively high WIS for their build. :smallbiggrin:

Sholos
2008-09-15, 02:43 PM
Why wouldn't people/creatures who lives inside of the game verse know about the rules of that game verse and use it to their advantage?
Because the D&D world is not supposed to be OOTS. OOTS is a parody of it. The only "rules" in-game characters should be aware of is a general idea of how spells work, and that should only be those with extensive knowledge of said spells (whether that means one of the spellcasting classes or someone who picks up ranks in Spellcraft). Note the use of the word "general". I mean that.


It's the players who don't know or misunderstand how the game verse actually works and tries to apply knowledge gained from the real world or literature that creates the problem. It's like saying that ignoring the guy with a sword and trying to kill the dude with the machine gun first is a bad thing in the real world.
No, it's like saying it's better to ignore the guy next to you with a knife to go after the other guy who might have a concealed pistol. Unless you're immune to knives, you shouldn't be ignoring it. Even then, unless you know the other guy actually has a pistol, it's a good idea to concentrate on the guy who is a threat.

Of course, if you want to ignore the guy with a sword who's standing right next to you to try and get to the guy with the gun, go ahead. You'll die that way, too. Whether from a bullet or getting stabbed, I don't know, but you will die by ignoring the guy with the sword. Especially since it's his job to tie you up and prevent you from getting to the guy with the gun.

Also, if you're arguing for using the mechanics of the game to base your decisions off of, then you've proved my argument that people aren't role-playing so much as roll-playing.

To further prove my point, take this situation:

You're in a bandit group. You are waiting along a trail, hidden in the bushes, for someone to come along. Along comes a group. This group includes two guys with leather armor (one of which carries a shortsword and one of which has two blades on his belt), one guy with chainmail on who has an arming sword at his waist and a shield on his back, another guy in a breastplate with the symbol of Tyr on it, and another guy in plain robes in the middle of the group. The order of march for the group is the two-sword guy first, then the chainmail guy, followed by the guy in a robe, followed by the guy with the breastplate, ending with the guy in leather with the shortsword. You are in front of the group when your ambush springs. All of the group pulls their weapons, and you end up paired against the guy with the arming sword and shield. Your friends are currently matched up with the guy in leather, the two-sword guy, and the guy in breastplate. What do you do?


Literature is filled with the imagery of a badass sword guy because it's easier for readers (most of whom are not wizards) to identify with a sword swinging protagonist than one who can wipe out whole battalions of sword swinging guys with a few words. This disconnect between expectation from myth/literature and the realities of the D&D game verse is what causes the confusion over fighters.

Literature has it's wizards and other magic-users, but it's harder to write a compelling story when you've got that much power available to you. See Cadderly and Elminster (though Cadderly when he starts isn't all that uber-powerful and Salvatore wisely doesn't focus on him much after the Quintet). I believe this is more the reason that you see more melee types than magic users. Not that magic users can't be well done. See Raistlin and (for the most part) Cadderly (though I always liked Ivan and Pikel more).

The confusion came about because fighters are wholly unsuited (mechanically speaking) to doing what they're supposed to do, whether you think that's fighting and killing things (except during the lower levels) or protecting their buds.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 02:44 PM
Hehe first of all you had me at ZugZug. Second of all Ogrimm Doomhammer is a Warlord, none of that Bard/Marshal/Barbarian stuff :smalltongue:
I dunno why, but ZugZug always puts a smile on my face. It's so comical and so...orky at the same time! As for Warlord, is there a Warlord class in 3.5?


Ogrimm never struck me as a Bard. Also, "FOR DOOMHAMMER!!" /obligatory WC3 reference
Ogrimm is a capable leader. He's got *some* oratory skills, and Oratory is an option for Bardic music.

arguskos
2008-09-15, 02:46 PM
I dunno why, but ZugZug always puts a smile on my face. It's so comical and so...orky at the same time! As for Warlord, is there a Warlord class in 3.5?


Ogrimm is a capable leader. He's got *some* oratory skills, and Oratory is an option for Bardic music.
There's no Warlord in 3.5 However, there is an Orc Warlord prestige class (in Races of Faerun).

Also, about Ogrimm, I totally see him using his Marshall auras as him bolstering the troops with a rousing round of "crush the pinkskins", or something.

-argus

Frosty
2008-09-15, 02:51 PM
Of course, if you want to ignore the guy with a sword who's standing right next to you to try and get to the guy with the gun, go ahead. You'll die that way, too. Whether from a bullet or getting stabbed, I don't know, but you will die by ignoring the guy with the sword. Especially since it's his job to tie you up and prevent you from getting to the guy with the gun.

But the point is, in 3.5 the guy with the sword and board most likely WON'T be able to kill you when you decide to go witht he higher value target. Monsters KNOW this if they've SURVIVED in the world for a long time. I play my monsters within the realities of the game. In the 3.5 Fighter McSuckalot is the standard meatshield, most experienced enemies will know that it's ok to turn away from them. And there's always Tumble.

Again, I do it in real life all the time. In a team battle, I *will* go after the high value targets first. Even if I get hit and am out, I've done my job. Soldiers think the same way.

Most Fighters just *can't* tie you up in melee.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 02:53 PM
It also helps that the WWI officers didn't lead the charges into the face of the machine guns. In D&D, we're talking about monsters that regularly fight, and probably know something about wizards (at least in the default setting). If you want to play it otherwise, that's fine, but it doesn't make much sense for, say, a warband of goblins that regularly tangles with adventurers to not charge the wizard and ignore the fighter whenever possible.

If it's a warband of goblins, presumably there are enough of them to do both at the same time.

What if they don't regularly trangle with adventurers? What if not every adventuring party has a wizard? Say the guy in the robes turned out to be a monk sometimes. Does it make sense to always charge him first?

No, it does not make sense for any given warband of goblins to always attack the wizard over the fighter. You're assuming that the goblins perceive the situation in a way that makes them react in the fashion you want to justify, when there is no good reason to assume they see it that way.

The monsters may know "something" about wizards, but what? They know all the spells on the PHB list that wizards might have? They know what level the wizard is, what he has in his book, and what he's prepared? They know he's a wizard? All adventuring parties they ever encountered had a wizard in them?


Heck, it always makes sense to kill the lightly-armored, high value targets first. Always - they're easier to kill and worth more to your enemy.

That's assuming you know that the target is a high-value target. Wizards don't walk around with a sign saying "Wizard" on them; they don't even all wear robes. What if the party wizard is an Eldritch knight in a mithril chain shirt with a greatsword; they know he's a wizard how exactly?


"Aaaaaaaaa! Grog paralyzed by little man! Wish Grog had listened to Thug who said that little man with robes is dangerous!"

Natural selection works strongly against such monsters :smallamused:

Of course it does. But you cannot assume that every hill giant has a friend named Thug who has experience with wizards and lived to tell the tale. Why does the hill giant necessarily encounter the party after coming by this wisdom? Perhaps the party is the experience that will allow him (if he lives) to tell other hill giants about the dangers wizards pose.

Some hill giants should react the way I described, others the way you described. If the DM always has the hill giant know to attack the wizard firt, he's playing on his perspective, not the giant's.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 02:53 PM
To further prove my point, take this situation:

You're in a bandit group. You are waiting along a trail, hidden in the bushes, for someone to come along. Along comes a group. This group includes two guys with leather armor (one of which carries a shortsword and one of which has two blades on his belt), one guy with chainmail on who has an arming sword at his waist and a shield on his back, another guy in a breastplate with the symbol of Tyr on it, and another guy in plain robes in the middle of the group. The order of march for the group is the two-sword guy first, then the chainmail guy, followed by the guy in a robe, followed by the guy with the breastplate, ending with the guy in leather with the shortsword. You are in front of the group when your ambush springs. All of the group pulls their weapons, and you end up paired against the guy with the arming sword and shield. Your friends are currently matched up with the guy in leather, the two-sword guy, and the guy in breastplate. What do you do?

Let's see, I'm a bandit so I've been killing travelers for awhile. If we've decided to ambush such an obviously well-armed group, then I bet I'll know a little bit about how strong they are.

Okay, guys with robes can set us all on fire, or make us slip and fall, and the last one we faced paralyzed Lenny so that their choppy guy could take his head off. Fortunately, he doesn't seem to have much to stop my sword, so I'll take him down first with Freddy the Flanker to help me get in some good hits. Things always seem to go better with Freddy around :smallbiggrin:

But right now we're facing down the dudes in armor. Bad news - they're hard to hit and we're not going to take 'em down before the wizard gets rolling. So we'd better run behind these meatshields and get down to business! Well, me and Freddy are both pretty good at weaving through lines, so we'll dodge past (tumbling!) and take out the wizard while my buddies keep the sword-swingers busy. If the sword-swingers pursue us, our buds can stab 'em in the back - if they don't, we'll be able to come back after we off their buddy!

That's what I'd do. Is that "good enough" RP for you? :smallamused:

EDIT:

Some hill giants should react the way I described, others the way you described. If the DM always has the hill giant know to attack the wizard firt, he's playing on his perspective, not the giant's.

If you have monsters that have tangled with adventurers and lived, they should have a pretty good idea as to what adventurers are capable of. If they haven't faced adventurers, then I guess your PCs got lucky, right? But monsters that don't learn just don't last very long - unless you're in the middle of a Savage Lands where the PCs are the first "civilized" folks the monsters have seen. A monster that hasn't ever fought an adventurer is "green" in the same way an adventurer that has never fought a goblin is "green"- they both lack basic knowledge that they would need to survive in a world where adventurers and goblins are common.

If your PCs don't live in such a world, then it'd better be a very dark or very safe world, because either nobody is killing the goblins, or there are no goblins to kill!

Matthew
2008-09-15, 02:54 PM
But the point is, in 3.5 the guy with the sword and board most likely WON'T be able to kill you when you decide to go witht he higher value target. Monsters KNOW this if they've SURVIVED in the world for a long time. I play my monsters within the realities of the game. In the 3.5 Fighter McSuckalot is the standard meatshield, most experienced enemies will know that it's ok to turn away from them. And there's always Tumble.

This actually turns on them knowing their current hit point totals. There is very little to give them this information, apart from actually going down. Given that they don't know whether they have a hundred or one hit point, there is an element of uncertainty even in a world that presupposes that monsters understand the abstract rules of "the game".

Moreover, if a monster has never actually ever been hurt in combat (having never been reduced to 0 hit points) the logic may follow that all such monsters are heroically reckless, thinking themselves entirely invulnerable.

Tormsskull
2008-09-15, 02:55 PM
What do you do?


I look at the mini that the DM has placed on the battlemap and see if the mini looks dangerous. Did I get it right? :smalltongue:

Frosty
2008-09-15, 02:57 PM
If it's a warband of goblins, presumably there are enough of them to do both at the same time.

What if they don't regularly trangle with adventurers? What if not every adventuring party has a wizard? Say the guy in the robes turned out to be a monk sometimes. Does it make sense to always charge him first?

No, it does not make sense for any given warband of goblins to always attack the wizard over the fighter. You're assuming that the goblins perceive the situation in a way that makes them react in the fashion you want to justify, when there is no good reason to assume they see it that way.

The monsters may know "something" about wizards, but what? They know all the spells on the PHB list that wizards might have? They know what level the wizard is, what he has in his book, and what he's prepared? They know he's a wizard? All adventuring parties they ever encountered had a wizard in them?



That's assuming you know that the target is a high-value target. Wizards don't walk around with a sign saying "Wizard" on them; they don't even all wear robes. What if the party wizard is an Eldritch knight in a mithril chain shirt with a greatsword; they know he's a wizard how exactly?



Of course it does. But you cannot assume that every hill giant has a friend named Thug who has experience with wizards and lived to tell the tale. Why does the hill giant necessarily encounter the party after coming by this wisdom? Perhaps the party is the experience that will allow him (if he lives) to tell other hill giants about the dangers wizards pose.

Some hill giants should react the way I described, others the way you described. If the DM always has the hill giant know to attack the wizard firt, he's playing on his perspective, not the giant's.

Some giants know, some don't. If the PCs keep on killing giants, however, rumors and news and reputations will spread around, and the next batch of giants may be better prepared.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 03:00 PM
This actually turns on them knowing their current hit point totals. There is very little to give them this information, apart from actually going down. Given that they don't know whether they have a hundred or one hit point, there is an element of uncertainty even in a world that presupposes that monsters understand the abstract rules of "the game".

Moreover, if a monster has never actually ever been hurt in combat (having never been reduced to 0 hit points) the logic may follow that all such monsters are heroically reckless, thinking themselves entirely invulnerable.

In my campaigns the monsters always know their own general health (not HP total, but they can tell about how hurt they are, like "half dead" or something), as do the PCs. Experienced monsters *have* been stabbed before. They've also eaten fireballs to the face. This is why they're level 13 and not level 1. If the enemy has never been seriously hurt in combat, he's likely a LOW level enemy since he just hasn't had his share of fights to learn from.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 03:03 PM
But the point is, in 3.5 the guy with the sword and board most likely WON'T be able to kill you when you decide to go witht he higher value target. Monsters KNOW this if they've SURVIVED in the world for a long time. I play my monsters within the realities of the game. In the 3.5 Fighter McSuckalot is the standard meatshield, most experienced enemies will know that it's ok to turn away from them. And there's always Tumble.

No, monsters don't know that. The combat system is an abstraction. Monsters don't know that there's a tumble skill that allows one to avoid attacks of opportunity; they know that it's hard to hit fast-moving targets. The only monsters that know the guy with the sword can't easily kill them are the super-tough varieties such as dragons.

There's nothing about the rules that says a 20th-level NPC can't have been killed with a single sword hit in combat that took place "off stage", so to speak. The abstraction is there to provide a system for combat the players are involved in.


Again, I do it in real life all the time. In a team battle, I *will* go after the high value targets first. Even if I get hit and am out, I've done my job. Soldiers think the same way.

No, actually they don't. Soldiers attack within the plan given to them by their superiors. There's a thing called "fire discipline" and it's a lot more complicated than just "attack high value targets first!" The primary deciding factor in what any given weapon system fires at is what it can most effetively engage.


Most Fighters just *can't* tie you up in melee.

If they can't, the DM is blatantly metagaming them

Sholos
2008-09-15, 03:05 PM
Pit Fiends are incredibly intelligent. They are capable of much more than just an analysis based on clothes. They also know just how powerful magic is (in the game world) seeing that they're magic incarnates themselves and they know that a sword is a mere distraction by comparison, while a few words from the robed man can be the end of him. Why would he ever in a billion years attack the man with a sword first when it's extremely likely the sword can't even touch him? I mean, he has the experience, the intelligence and the wisdom that far exceeds mortal minds like yours and mine (D&D Wizards can exceed them, but only through the use of Magic the most intelligent D&D Human without Magic would have Int 26, and that's venerable with 18 to start with and the exp of an epic hero) - he's far smarter than to make misassessments.

Agreed about the Pit Fiends. This is because they are very, very smart. To them, the bigger threat is the wizard, until the fighter proves himself a threat.


Except a Hill Giant will probably have experienced that swords can't even harm him (if he's fought average Humans, that is level 1 Warriors/Commoners before, he'll have noticed that his skin is so thick they can't even penetrate it and since people of those levels make up like 99% of the D&D populance, it's very likely those are all he's ever faced). On the other hand, if he's ever fought any casters (level 1 Adepts/Wizards/whatever), he knows that spells hurt (even Magic Missile deals damage while sword is like to just bounce off his skin). If he's been exposed to magic in his own community (and what being wouldn't be in D&D world, which again features some kinds of casters in just about every community?), he'll know how powerful it is. If the robed man in any way identifies himself as capable of casting spells, I'd wager any Hill Giant would first go for it and finish the trivial guy with the sword later.

Let's see, do Hill Giants have any DR? .... looking .... looking ... Why, no, it appears they don't! Meaning that anyone who hits them with a sword deals damage! Meaning they aren't immune to swords! Why, mercy me, it appears that a Hill Giant would probably be concerned about the guy who just stuck him wit da big pointy stick, doesn't it? I'd also question where a Hill Giant is going to be exposed all that much to magic beyond the weak wizards he's already crushed (and who probably did far less damage than the other fighters, and have thus proved to be a less urgent target). It's not like you get a lot of Hill Giant spellcasters. I wouldn't think he'd see any, really.

Really, if the giant has experienced nothing but people who didn't put him to any trouble, then he's not exactly going to be thinking much about the fight. Also, he'll be in for quite a surprise if he expects the higher level fighter's sword to just "bounce off". Meanwhile, if all he's been hit with is Magic Missile, then he probably doesn't even consider that a real threat. It's not like 5 damage (tops) is going to matter much. Not when the occasional lucky hit deals far more.

________________________________


Why do you need a specific monster?
I want a specific monster because what the monster does depends on what it is.


I gave you a simple proposition:

IF Monster has no reason to be afraid of Threat A, THEN monster should be threatened by Threat A, for RP purposes.

Is that a true proposition?
No, but it doesn't matter because no one ever said anything along those lines. It was specified that the monster does have a reason to be afraid of Threat A, and would thus deal with it before moving on to Threat B.


Also:

IF Monster is more concerned with Threat B than Threat A, THEN Monster is more threatened by Threat A than Threat B, for RP purposes.

Again, no one said anything like this.


But if you want, I'll throw up the Pit Fiend.

Should a Pit Fiend be more concerned with a 20th level Fighter or a 20th level Wizard; or for RP friendly purposes - should he be more concerned with a guy in magic full plate and a magic large shield and a magic longsword, or should be more concerned with the dude in back with ion stones, a fancy looking robe, and a magic staff? Which would he attack first, assuming that he wasn't going to be flying (and neither was the wizard).
I'd say the Pit Fiend is a pretty smart cookie and would thus go after the wizard. What's your point? All we're arguing for is proper role-playing of monsters. For some, this means very poor tactical decisions.


Or a little lower leveled: Would the Hill Giant attack the dude in the armor first, or the dude in robes first? And why?

Probably the guy in armor, as detailed above. On the very, very rare occasion that the Hill Giant has run into high level wizards (and survived, even rarer), then I might start leaning towards him attacking the wizard first.

Matthew
2008-09-15, 03:06 PM
In my campaigns the monsters always know their own general health (not HP total, but they can tell about how hurt they are, like "half dead" or something), as do the PCs. Experienced monsters *have* been stabbed before. They've also eaten fireballs to the face. This is why they're level 13 and not level 1. If the enemy has never been seriously hurt in combat, he's likely a LOW level enemy since he just hasn't had his share of fights to learn from.

Which is fair enough, but also milieu specific. To put it another way, these are assumptions that have to be aired as the first premises on which the rest of any argument is built for how characters view combat.

Hit points are completely abstract in my game, characters have no idea what their hit point totals are. They are as capable at 1% of their hit points as they are at 100%. Unless they actually suffer a wound, then they are unwounded.

Starsinger
2008-09-15, 03:08 PM
Hit points are completely abstract in my game, characters have no idea what their hit point totals are. They are as capable at 1% of their hit points as they are at 100%.

A mantra I constantly repeat at my players, which I learned from a Xenogears Demo is "A monster can kill you whether it has 1 or 1,000,000 hit points."

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 03:08 PM
If they can't, the DM is blatantly metagaming them

You're trying to fill in a rules-shortfall with a RP patch.

It just doesn't make sense for someone who knows that they can move past a Fighter without even an AoO (tumbling!) and attack someone with little obvious armor and who looks pretty weak to not do so. Unless you assume monsters have no clue as to what their options in combat are - whether they're good at swinging a sword or not, how tough their armor is, how tough they are, and whether they can run past someone without getting hit. I'm not saying they need to know their exact HP, AC, and BAB, but if they have no idea how they fight, how do they fight?

And your point about "fire discipline" is misguided. No lieutenant is going to say "if the enemy General decides to walk into the line of fire, don't shoot him" unless they are operating under a specific "code of war" which forbids them to do it. And even then, they might do it anyways, to greatly wound the enemy's forces!

Needless to say, goblins are under no such compunctions :smallamused:

arguskos
2008-09-15, 03:11 PM
If they can't, the DM is blatantly metagaming them
This is not strictly true I feel. It is completely possible that, a round or two into the combat, the fighter has completely failed to do anything to the monster. Logically, the beastie isn't going to keep standing there. He's going to go maul something that HAS hurt him. Period. I don't care how smart he is. If he has an Int score, he's not gonna stand there like a ninny while ranged combatants own him with arrows/spells/orc shotputs/whatever and the sword/board guy isn't doing anything.

On the reverse, if the fighter has shown the power to penetrate his defenses, even one time, and score a solid, pain-filled blow, then the critter is going to stay where he is and smack the **** out of the fighter for daring to hurt him. Once he's down, then the critter will turn on something else that's hurt him. It's easy.

Someone earlier made the point that in a fight, it's a challenge just to subsume the part of your brain that is screaming, "HIT IT OR DIE!! GOGOGO!!!" That still applies. I've been in a real fight (not SCA or anything, but an honest-to-goodness knife fight), and from my experience, there isn't time to think about ****. You just GO. Hit him. He's down, hit next threat. If no ranged threats, hit closest enemy. Repeat. D&D only changes in that more people bring guns.

-argus

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 03:12 PM
Let's see, do Hill Giants have any DR? .... looking .... looking ... Why, no, it appears they don't! Meaning that anyone who hits them with a sword deals damage! Meaning they aren't immune to swords! Why, mercy me, it appears that a Hill Giant would probably be concerned about the guy who just stuck him wit da big pointy stick, doesn't it? I'd also question where a Hill Giant is going to be exposed all that much to magic beyond the weak wizards he's already crushed (and who probably did far less damage than the other fighters, and have thus proved to be a less urgent target). It's not like you get a lot of Hill Giant spellcasters. I wouldn't think he'd see any, really.

See, I don't think so. Why wouldn't there be Hill Giant spellcasters? They have plenty of Wis to make for Adepts and even Clerics or Druids. Adept is specifically designed for savage cultures without the means to create trained casters.

Sword deals damage, but Hill Giant has so high Natural Armor that it's fully likely, none of the humans he's eaten has actually been able to deal any. Why would he need Damage Reduction if Human is nigh' incapable of penetrating his skin (Natural Armor) in the first place?

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 03:16 PM
Let's see, I'm a bandit so I've been killing travelers for awhile.

Not necessarily, and even if you have, so what? "Travellers" is pretty vague.


If we've decided to ambush such an obviously well-armed group, then I bet I'll know a little bit about how strong they are.

A little bit, yes.


Okay, guys with robes can set us all on fire, or make us slip and fall, and the last one we faced paralyzed Lenny so that their choppy guy could take his head off.

Hmm.. "guys with robes" can? Can't guys with robes also hit you with their fists while yelling KIIIYA!!? Can't guys in mithril shirts with greatswords also set you on fire sometimes?


Fortunately, he doesn't seem to have much to stop my sword, so I'll take him down first with Freddy the Flanker to help me get in some good hits. Things always seem to go better with Freddy around :smallbiggrin:

Unless he's wearing a breastplate and carrying a mace concealed under his robes....


But right now we're facing down the dudes in armor. Bad news - they're hard to hit and we're not going to take 'em down before the wizard gets rolling. So we'd better run behind these meatshields and get down to business! Well, me and Freddy are both pretty good at weaving through lines, so we'll dodge past (tumbling!) and take out the wizard while my buddies keep the sword-swingers busy. If the sword-swingers pursue us, our buds can stab 'em in the back - if they don't, we'll be able to come back after we off their buddy!


That's what I'd do. Is that "good enough" RP for you? :smallamused:

It's not bad, but the decision-making process of your bandits seems to rely heavily on everything always being just what it seems, and on your bandits having little fear.

Ok, you can tumble. As effective as it is, tumbling doesn't always work. Your bandits should ahve seen it fail, with messy results a few times, even if it generally works. Why isn't Freddy Flanker nervous about tumbling through these fighters? Sooner or later, he's going to slip in the mud (fail his tumble check)


If you have monsters that have tangled with adventurers and lived, they should have a pretty good idea as to what adventurers are capable of. If they haven't faced adventurers, then I guess your PCs got lucky, right? But monsters that don't learn just don't last very long - unless you're in the middle of a Savage Lands where the PCs are the first "civilized" folks the monsters have seen.

Just how common ARE adventurers in your world?


A monster that hasn't ever fought an adventurer is "green" in the same way an adventurer that has never fought a goblin is "green"- they both lack basic knowledge that they would need to survive in a world where adventurers and goblins are common.

Obviously. However, that doesn't change the fact that being willing to allow a guy to take swings at you with a sword while you focus on someone else requires either supreme confidence in your defenses, total lack of understanding of what a sword is and does (i.e. truely stupid creatures), or truly incredible levels of resolve. For some monsters, these are appropriate. That cannot be said of every single one though.

Monsters should not be thinking "He only does 1d8+5 damage". They shold be thinking "I don't want to get stabbed!" and if they're really big and tough they might caveat that with "but if I do I'll still most likely be ok.. but damn it's going to hurt."


If your PCs don't live in such a world, then it'd better be a very dark or very safe world, because either nobody is killing the goblins, or there are no goblins to kill!

You're making too many assumptions about how the world needs to work. I'm seeing more and more evidence here that people have decided the fighter can't "hold aggro" or whatever, then arrange the tactics of the monsters around the metagame "problem" with the class by assuming the monsters always understand and have the mental resolve necessary to exploit that understanding... and the PCs always conveniently conform to the 4-person party with each character dressing in clearly identifiable fashion.

Deepblue706
2008-09-15, 03:16 PM
The entire premise of DnD says you that've got 3 Civvies to defend at all times during your adventure.

Fighter - Full BAB
Cleric - 3/4
Rogur - 3/4
Wizard - 1/2

You're the only trained soldier in the iconic 4-person party, so you *better* get used to protecting the Civvies.

Well, that's how the game design works, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.


Since we're talking about real-ish analogues... the Fighter is very much appropriate for a defender role. Let's take the closest approximations we can. The fighter, as you point out, has a real representation: the soldier on the field. To make things clearer, let's call him a whole squadron of heavy infantry on a battlefield. They deal damage, and in the end they're the ones that occupy enemy territory. But they need support.

The closest thing to a D&D rogue would be, probably, light cavalry - mobile and can hit hard under the right circumstances, but can't stand up to a solid assault. The wizard comes closest to artillery, or a squad of archers - able to pin down/immobilize a foe or to destroy them from a distance, but vulnerable up close. The cleric is the medical corps. They're all valuable, all necessary for victory, all essential to a combined-arms approach to battle, but the fighter has to keep the enemy's focus off of them if he wants to succeed, and in some cases that's the whole effort - to grab hold of the enemy and expose the flank to a cavalry charge, or hold them on a slope while the archers rain death down, and certainly to keep enemy forces out of the supply and medical tents so wounded people have somewhere to go. In essence, the other classes aren't civilians, they're specialized troops.

(Of course, the problem that 3e runs into is that the infantry isn't necessary; it's like the artillery brigade is rolling around in a castle and the surgeons are all armored knights themselves.)

The Fighter is also very appropriate for the Striker role. Yet, "Defender" is his dominant part, "Striker" being only secondary.

Fighters should be significantly stronger than anyone who doesn't have full combat training, unless they have access to magic. But, this gets thrown out the window because the game requires balance, and everyone enjoys contributing as much as the guy next to him. Thus the Fighter has his image cheapened, simply because everyone wants other classes to do what he's supposed to do best: killing. So, a secondary nature of his - Defending - now takes the forefront.

I just think that's kinda unfortunate. I mean, think of it this way: imagine everyone gets access to Wizard spells (not just rituals, etc), and the Wizard only has one exclusive ability called Scholar. Which means he just learns more things. Not necessarily spells. Things. That's his job, see; he's the smartest guy, and most able to read books. So, the team designates him to do all of the learning when it comes to books and such. That's why they keep him around. He reads.

Now your party roles are:

Defender
Striker
Leader
Reader

arguskos
2008-09-15, 03:20 PM
I look at the mini that the DM has placed on the battlemap and see if the mini looks dangerous. Did I get it right?
Just saw this. I agree completely. :smallbiggrin:

Second, to Eldariel:

Sword deals damage, but Hill Giant has so high Natural Armor that it's fully likely, none of the humans he's eaten has actually been able to deal any. Why would he need Damage Reduction if Human is nigh' incapable of penetrating his skin (Natural Armor) in the first place?
The man with the pokey sword probably WILL land a hit. Consider that, mechanically, he's probably of a decent level, and is capable of hitting that AC (which isn't even that high, really). Once he does land a hit, suddenly, he's WAY scarier to the Hill Giant, and becomes a more vital target.

I guess what I'm getting at is the biggest flaw of Fighters: they cannot serve as consistent damage dealers sans some optimization (not a sin, but something worth noting). If they could (which they can, with things like Dungeon Crasher, Shock Trooper, etc, but that's DM and setting dependent, not a good bet), they would be far better at standing there and keeping the eye of the smasher on them.

-argus

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 03:20 PM
Sword deals damage, but Hill Giant has so high Natural Armor that it's fully likely, none of the humans he's eaten has actually been able to deal any. Why would he need Damage Reduction if Human is nigh' incapable of penetrating his skin (Natural Armor) in the first place?


You've got to be kidding me. A typical hill giant has an AC of 20, and is a challenge rating of 7. Is it THAT hard for a 7th level fighter to hit AC 20?

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 03:24 PM
You've got to be kidding me. A typical hill giant has an AC of 20, and is a challenge rating of 7. Is it THAT hard for a 7th level fighter to hit AC 20?

How many Hill Giants have ever fought a level 7 Fighter? Pre-fight, the Hill Giant has no way of telling the Fighter is level 7, instead of level 1 like 99% of the humans and probably 100% of the humans he's fought. Sure, if the Fighter manages to connect, the Hill Giant may pay attention, but that's providing the caster doesn't connect more and that the Hill Giant hasn't e.g. seen what an Adept can do. If it only knows little of Magic, it will probably be even more like to go after the guy who cast a spell simply because of the "fear of the unknown".

nagora
2008-09-15, 03:26 PM
There's a lot of assumptions flying about here.

One is that wizards walking around the countryside beating up hill giants is common enough for the hill giants to expect it. It sure isn't in my games; hill giants will be familiar with rangers but their experience with wizards is probably restricted to stories and they may well assume that the magic user is a merchant being escorted.

Even when a monster does have some experience of adventurers, there's no easy way to tell on first sight whether they are low or high level. Logically, most adventurers are low level, so confidence will be natural unless the monster knows that only experienced and well equipped foes could possibly be found in a location (eg, the bottom level of a deep dungeon).

And, although I don't go as far as Matthew on this, the number of hit points a character has is totally unavailable through even the greatest magics - hit points simply don't exist to the creatures in the game. A character who has been reduced from 20 to 2 hit points will look a bit battered, but no more than one that was reduced from 80hp, while a character who only has 2hp but 18 STR will look like a strong, and possibly dangerous person especially when dressed in armour and weilding a greatsword.

Character perceptions are nothing like our player perceptions and should be played accordingly. A sword can kill a man in a single blow (in 1e this is literally true no matter what HP the character has, given the right circumstances) - some eejit waving their arms about might just be having a fit. These are things characters and monsters know. Some know that waving arms might mean something more, but they still know that the big sharp piece of metal is potentially lethal. We know that the sword is not an immediate threat, but an NPC doesn't and even a hill giant doesn't want to be stabbed any more than you or I want to be stung by a wasp.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 03:28 PM
It's not bad, but the decision-making process of your bandits seems to rely heavily on everything always being just what it seems, and on your bandits having little fear.

Listen, if my bandit group has decided to ambush a heavily-armed band without obvious treasure, then they'd better have little fear. A group that isn't will just sneak past and go kill some merchants with their lazy caravan guards.

And if I'm not confident in things being what I see, I'll still go with what's the most likely situation. If I'm not confident enough, then I won't attack them!

Why should bandits take stupid risks?


Ok, you can tumble. As effective as it is, tumbling doesn't always work. Your bandits should ahve seen it fail, with messy results a few times, even if it generally works. Why isn't Freddy Flanker nervous about tumbling through these fighters? Sooner or later, he's going to slip in the mud (fail his tumble check)

I need a 15 to Tumble past these guys. With 16 DEX and 5 Ranks in Balance and Jump (+7) I need 7 ranks in Tumble to always Tumble... so, Level 4 Rogues. Or, if you say that 1's always fail on Skill Checks, I have a 1 in 20 chance of failing... that's better odds than slugging it out with a sword-swinger until his wizard buddy does something.

I may not know how many ranks I have in Tumble, but I sure as hell know how risky a given maneuver is.


You're making too many assumptions about how the world needs to work. I'm seeing more and more evidence here that people have decided the fighter can't "hold aggro" or whatever, then arrange the tactics of the monsters around the metagame "problem" with the class by assuming the monsters always understand and have the mental resolve necessary to exploit that understanding... and the PCs always conveniently conform to the 4-person party with each character dressing in clearly identifiable fashion.

The reason why people say that fighters can't "hold aggro" in 3e is because there is no mechanical way for them to do so. If you assume that your monsters ignore the realities of combat, even when so doing will threaten their lives, then why are they even fighting? Don't they know how?

Also, if your monsters aren't ready to take on adventurers, then they should be doing a lot more running and a lot less fighting. If they are really so frightened by the dude with a sword, then they should run and try to kill the weak dudes when the sword-swinger isn't looking.

Do your monsters run from every battle? If not, why?

Sholos
2008-09-15, 03:29 PM
Let's see, I'm a bandit so I've been killing travelers for awhile. If we've decided to ambush such an obviously well-armed group, then I bet I'll know a little bit about how strong they are.

Okay, guys with robes can set us all on fire, or make us slip and fall, and the last one we faced paralyzed Lenny so that their choppy guy could take his head off. Fortunately, he doesn't seem to have much to stop my sword, so I'll take him down first with Freddy the Flanker to help me get in some good hits. Things always seem to go better with Freddy around :smallbiggrin:

But right now we're facing down the dudes in armor. Bad news - they're hard to hit and we're not going to take 'em down before the wizard gets rolling. So we'd better run behind these meatshields and get down to business! Well, me and Freddy are both pretty good at weaving through lines, so we'll dodge past (tumbling!) and take out the wizard while my buddies keep the sword-swingers busy. If the sword-swingers pursue us, our buds can stab 'em in the back - if they don't, we'll be able to come back after we off their buddy!

That's what I'd do. Is that "good enough" RP for you? :smallamused:

Okay, you get around. Your buddy gets around. You stab the guy in the middle. He falls. Now you get stabbed through the back by the guy you just got around, your friend gets ganged up on by the two in leather, and the guy who stabbed you is yelling something about healing the scholar. "Scholar?" you ask? Yeah, the guy you risked (and payed with) your life to stab. See how things aren't always so simple? Especially when your opponents are kept to a strict turn-based schedule. Oh, and the other two bandits ran off.

Even in a normal game of D&D this would probably turn out very badly for you, since I was running the assumption of everyone being first level, meaning one good hit from the sword guy is going to ruin your day.

Though I'll give it to you that you did write a good story. It just doesn't end too well for the bandits.

_______________



I look at the mini that the DM has placed on the battlemap and see if the mini looks dangerous. Did I get it right? :smalltongue:

Now there's a strategy I can get behind! :smalltongue:

___________________________



Again, I do it in real life all the time. In a team battle, I *will* go after the high value targets first. Even if I get hit and am out, I've done my job. Soldiers think the same way.

See, you don't just get hit and get out. You get hit and get dead. What if you were told that if you get hit, you aren't ever allowed to participate again? Would that change your actions? Also, do you stop as soon as you get hit? Would you stop in the middle of a roll and not attack afterwards if you were hit in the middle of the roll?


Most Fighters just *can't* tie you up in melee.

And that is a bad thing. Just because the mechanics don't support it doesn't mean that RPing can't.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 03:30 PM
No, monsters don't know that. The combat system is an abstraction. Monsters don't know that there's a tumble skill that allows one to avoid attacks of opportunity; they know that it's hard to hit fast-moving targets. The only monsters that know the guy with the sword can't easily kill them are the super-tough varieties such as dragons.

Then your monsters are way too stupid. The people that know mr sword isn't very dangerous are not that uncommon. Mr Dragon knows advanced counter-strategies above and beyond that.



No, actually they don't. Soldiers attack within the plan given to them by their superiors. There's a thing called "fire discipline" and it's a lot more complicated than just "attack high value targets first!" The primary deciding factor in what any given weapon system fires at is what it can most effetively engage.

Well DUH. My sergeant ORDERS me to do these kind of things. In fact, when I first started, I was hesitant to do these kind of things like disengaging from the current enemy and going after a better target, and I caused my side to LOSE. I didn't think clearly in the heat of battle because I was INEXPERIENCED. We discuss these kinds of strategies and we practice them, and after having been in the group for close to a year, I'm a bit better now and I am disciplined enough to ignore the closest threat and go for the better target. This is a part of real battle. You wanna come and sword-fight with our group? We'll teach you a lot about real combat.

arguskos
2008-09-15, 03:32 PM
And that is a bad thing. Just because the mechanics don't support it doesn't mean that RPing can't.
Though I (and most of us here, I'd bet) agree with the first part of your statement, I can't agree with the second part.

I'd say that RP and Mechanics walk hand in hand. It's like a marriage: without both people participating, it's not gonna work out well. RP goes so far, but w/o associated mechanics to describe the RPing, it's gonna get hairy quickly.

Of course, this is again, just my opinion, so take it or leave it.

-argus

Frosty
2008-09-15, 03:34 PM
See, you don't just get hit and get out. You get hit and get dead. What if you were told that if you get hit, you aren't ever allowed to participate again? Would that change your actions? Also, do you stop as soon as you get hit? Would you stop in the middle of a roll and not attack afterwards if you were hit in the middle of the roll?



And that is a bad thing. Just because the mechanics don't support it doesn't mean that RPing can't.

umm the way we play, if we get hit, we are "dead" But if I can take 2 or 3 of them out from behind before I "die", I've DONE MY JOB. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

In order of importance: 1) Completing Objective 2) Troop wellfare.

And in DnD, if you get hit, so what? Beyond the low levels, HP damage isn't that impressive for the most part. My monsters know this. The PCS that play in my campaign knows this. Once you've gotten enoughe xperienced beyond level 6 or so, you've seen enought hat you know this unless you have animal intelligence.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 03:35 PM
You're trying to fill in a rules-shortfall with a RP patch.

It's not a rules shortfall. This IS an RPG, after all. The DM is supposed to roleplay the monsters. If you need a "rules patch" fto make the DM roleplay, your problem is your DM.


It just doesn't make sense for someone who knows that they can move past a Fighter without even an AoO (tumbling!) and attack someone with little obvious armor and who looks pretty weak to not do so.

No, actually it makes perfect sense. You're assuming the monsters ahve perfect knowledge of the situation at hand. Even if they've seen a wizard before, not all wizards look like the first one they saw.


Unless you assume monsters have no clue as to what their options in combat are - whether they're good at swinging a sword or not, how tough their armor is, how tough they are, and whether they can run past someone without getting hit. I'm not saying they need to know their exact HP, AC, and BAB, but if they have no idea how they fight, how do they fight?

Obviously they "know how to fight"; that's what gives them their BAB, proficiencies, etc.

You're assuming a situation where the attackers are fighting a PC party that is kind enough to conform exactly to every stereotype, and assuming that's always the case, and dressing that up as "knowing how to fight". Part of "knowing how to fight" is not making stupid assumptions about your enemy. All these monsters you keep citing seem to be suspiciously familiar with fighters and wizards, but never seem to encounter Warblades, Swordsages, Gishes, Duskblades, or any other type of adventurer that makes nice neat little assumptions fall apart in short order.


And your point about "fire discipline" is misguided. No lieutenant is going to say "if the enemy General decides to walk into the line of fire, don't shoot him" unless they are operating under a specific "code of war" which forbids them to do it. And even then, they might do it anyways, to greatly wound the enemy's forces!

Don't be ridiculous. No Lieutenant is going to issue instructions regarding the off-chance of some enemy general wandering right through the middle of a firefight. Lieutenants are generally far too busy to issue instructions for such ridiculous possibilities as generals who just happen to walk into the FEBA without taking sensible precautions to ensure they don't get shot.

If some general IS exposed to enemy fire while inspecting the front, chances are its going to be a sniper that engages him, because that's the reason snipers exist, and they are armed with an appropriate weapon system for engaging high-value personnel.

By the way, I happen to know this because I'm an officer in the Army Reserves, and I actually WAS a lieutenant at one time, so don't make up ignorant nonsense about how real combat works and expect to slip it by me.


Needless to say, goblins are under no such compunctions :smallamused:

The comment about fire discipline was in response to someone's attempt to claim soldiers behave the way he does when playing paintball.

Sholos
2008-09-15, 03:38 PM
Listen, if my bandit group has decided to ambush a heavily-armed band without obvious treasure, then they'd better have little fear. A group that isn't will just sneak past and go kill some merchants with their lazy caravan guards.

And if I'm not confident in things being what I see, I'll still go with what's the most likely situation. If I'm not confident enough, then I won't attack them!

Why should bandits take stupid risks?
Because they're only average intelligence and people make mistakes?


I need a 15 to Tumble past these guys. With 16 DEX and 5 Ranks in Balance and Jump (+7) I need 7 ranks in Tumble to always Tumble... so, Level 4 Rogues. Or, if you say that 1's always fail on Skill Checks, I have a 1 in 20 chance of failing... that's better odds than slugging it out with a sword-swinger until his wizard buddy does something.
This assumes knowledge that a character has no access to.


I may not know how many ranks I have in Tumble, but I sure as hell know how risky a given maneuver is.
Yes, tumbling past someone is a very risky maneuver. One wonders why you use it so much.


The reason why people say that fighters can't "hold aggro" in 3e is because there is no mechanical way for them to do so. If you assume that your monsters ignore the realities of combat, even when so doing will threaten their lives, then why are they even fighting? Don't they know how?
If you have monsters act on mechanics, you are not role-playing. You are roll-playing. Your average humanoid has no way of knowing that someone can't kill him in a single hit, barring some sort of enchantment that makes this so.


Also, if your monsters aren't ready to take on adventurers, then they should be doing a lot more running and a lot less fighting. If they are really so frightened by the dude with a sword, then they should run and try to kill the weak dudes when the sword-swinger isn't looking.

Do your monsters run from every battle? If not, why?

After losing half (portion of force not fixed) their force? Why, yes, they do. They may ambush later (with a better knowledge of what to do) or they may disappear into the woods.

arguskos
2008-09-15, 03:39 PM
And in DnD, if you get hit, so what? Beyond the low levels, HP damage isn't that impressive for the most part. My monsters know this. The PCS that play in my campaign knows this. Once you've gotten enoughe xperienced beyond level 6 or so, you've seen enought hat you know this unless you have animal intelligence.
So, fighters that can deal 1000's of damage to whatever they feel like all damn day aren't impressive? I'm pretty sure when the man with a sword manages to hit the tarrasque so hard, it conks out, it's impressive. I don't think it makes so much sense to COMPLETELY ignore HP as an issue. When PC's have the power to drop monsters (even some tough frikkin' critters) in one to three hits, monsters pay attention. When they hit so hard, the monster in question is bleeding profusely and is missing part of his flank, I think HP might just matter.

Of course, I think of HP as something that you can tell, in general, so if you think differently, that could be one of the disconnects between posters here.

-argus

EDIT: I find it amusing that I keep posting, yet no one really seems to notice. Perhaps I'm not being Rawr! enough with my posts? :smallwink:

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 03:41 PM
umm the way we play, if we get hit, we are "dead" But if I can take 2 or 3 of them out from behind before I "die", I've DONE MY JOB. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

You were talking about high value targets, not taking out 2 or 3 opponents. Put the goalposts back, please. Also, if you were really attacking an enemy infantry force, I daresay you would not be willing to get your ass shot off just to kill 2 or 3 of them.


In order of importance: 1) Completing Objective 2) Troop wellfare.

Obviously. However, notice troop welfare comes before everything else. Moreover, just because mission comes forst doesn't mean every soldier out there is willing to make a suicidal attack when, they can, you know, actually die, as opposed to getting a pink mark on their clothing.

Furthermore, troops represent combat power. Troop welfare comes after mission accomplishment but before everything else. It's foolish to spend more lives than you have to when accomplishing a mission, even if you don't are aout your troops. Dead troops no longer fight for you.


And in DnD, if you get hit, so what? Beyond the low levels, HP damage isn't that impressive for the most part. My monsters know this. The PCS that play in my campaign knows this. Once you've gotten enoughe xperienced beyond level 6 or so, you've seen enought hat you know this unless you have animal intelligence.


So you admit that your monsters posess blantant metagame knowledge. I'm glad I don't play with a DM that does that.

No, a monster isn't supposed to know that becaus they're level 6. All combat in the world doesn't have to be resolved according to combat rules. They're an abstraction to handle combat the PCs are in; every other combat is a DM fiat affair and doesn't need to reflect those rules.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 03:42 PM
Because I'm apparently addicted to the Internets:


Okay, you get around. Your buddy gets around. You stab the guy in the middle. He falls. Now you get stabbed through the back by the guy you just got around, your friend gets ganged up on by the two in leather, and the guy who stabbed you is yelling something about healing the scholar. "Scholar?" you ask? Yeah, the guy you risked (and payed with) your life to stab. See how things aren't always so simple? Especially when your opponents are kept to a strict turn-based schedule. Oh, and the other two bandits ran off.

Even in a normal game of D&D this would probably turn out very badly for you, since I was running the assumption of everyone being first level, meaning one good hit from the sword guy is going to ruin your day.

Though I'll give it to you that you did write a good story. It just doesn't end too well for the bandits.

Well, that's what I get for doing an ambush with insufficient scouting, eh? :smalltongue:

Of course all your assumptions won't be correct, but you have to go with what you know. Between a chance of taking out a major threat to our band and the chance that I spend a few seconds killing a nobody, I'd still still kill him.

At worst, Freddy and I spent a few seconds slaughtering a nobody while getting out of arms reach of the guys with swords. If the guys with swords decided to turn around, they'd have my boys at their backs - and I know they can't dodge as nimbly as I can. If my boys can't stand up to the sword-swingers for a few seconds, then I gravely miscalculated when assaulting this band.

And if they decided to turn tail and run after seeing me take out a potentially thread in short order? I'll turn tail and run too, go back to the bandit camp and ambush the yellow-backs. Then we'll strike camp and find some outlaws with more spines. :smallamused:

'course, if I'm dead, then it doesn't matter, does it? But I minimized my risks in a extremely risky situation - it's the same thing you or anyone else would do if they were the bandits. I certainly wouldn't run into the fight just to wet my pants 'cause some guy with a sword is in my face!

EDIT:

Yes, tumbling past someone is a very risky maneuver. One wonders why you use it so much.

Because it's not risky for me. I use it all the time, and someone takes a swing at me, at worst, once every 20 times. And then they don't even always hit! You are just ignoring how the rules work, and I can't tell why.


If you have monsters act on mechanics, you are not role-playing. You are roll-playing. Your average humanoid has no way of knowing that someone can't kill him in a single hit, barring some sort of enchantment that makes this so.

How about by fighting lots of people and never seeing any of their allies die in one hit? Does that count as knowledge? If not, why?

I appreciate that you'd like things to conform to your perception of How Things Work, but doesn't it bother you that you ignore the very mechanics that describe How Things Work in the game you are playing? If it doesn't, you would be better of playing a Narrative system where the rules actually don't matter.

arguskos
2008-09-15, 03:44 PM
Because I'm apparently addicted to the Internets:
Where would we all be if we weren't addicted to the Internet? :smallamused:

-argus

Frosty
2008-09-15, 03:44 PM
If you have monsters act on mechanics, you are not role-playing. You are roll-playing. Your average humanoid has no way of knowing that someone can't kill him in a single hit, barring some sort of enchantment that makes this so.

True. average humanoids without combat training will likely panic and be very scared of a sword. Most likely, they DO die in a single hit at level 1 or 2 with their d4 or d6 hit-dice and 11 con. That's why, in high levels, you stop facing low level humanoids.

There are plenty of people that'll be scared and panic and not be very optimal in a fight. As a DM, I give those once in a while, but for the most part, my players want to be challenged, and so the important story fights *will* be tough. The fights where the enemy is disorganized and scared? Those tend to end quickly or I even just handwaver them and describe the slaughter cinematically.

And my monsters are definitely tied to mechanics. I will NOT RP a monster scared of a sword if he has not reason to, IC or otherwise. It's NOT good rping in my view. If the character has an unnatrual phobia to swords, for example, that's cool. That's a mental disorder, and that might be good rp, but barring things like that, there's not much reason to be afraid of a sword, and my experienced monsters know it.

That said, if my players can rp their taunts well, and make the recurring villains HATE one specific character, however, that villain may decide, for RP reasons, to go after the fighter first. But this is a VALID rp reason in spite of mechanics, not some silly fear of swords that monsters shouldn't have most of the time.

Lapak
2008-09-15, 03:47 PM
The Fighter is also very appropriate for the Striker role. Yet, "Defender" is his dominant part, "Striker" being only secondary.

Fighters should be significantly stronger than anyone who doesn't have full combat training, unless they have access to magic.They are. Conditionally. Just like in the real world. An armored knight is a lot stronger than a half-armored guy with a poniard - unless the guy with a dagger is behind him and he's too busy to turn around quickly. He's stronger than a hunter with a longbow - unless the hunter is 100 feet away. He's stronger with the siege operator who runs a catapult loaded with incendiary shot - as long as he's standing next to him. You can train all day, every day, in a particular style of combat - melee combat - and not be stronger than people who don't have full combat training if you oppose them in the fields that ARE specialized in. The fighter is not, and has not ever been, a warrior equally trained in every possible combat discipline - he's the straight-up warrior rather than the commando or the cannoneer.

But, this gets thrown out the window because the game requires balance, and everyone enjoys contributing as much as the guy next to him. Thus the Fighter has his image cheapened, simply because everyone wants other classes to do what he's supposed to do best: killing. So, a secondary nature of his - Defending - now takes the forefront. It's not about balance, it's about different combat training being good for different things. Rogues (in 3.x and 4) are good at taking advantage of single foes who are distracted or otherwise at a disadvantage. Clerics are good at supporting their allies. The fighter is, and always has been (except mid/high level 3rd edition) the guy who can be in the middle of a combat most effectively, deal damage to anyone within reach, and not be seriously inconvenienced by being in the thick of the fight. I should note that some legendary fighters - including one of the archetype-warriors, Herakles - died specifically because their opponents opted not to go toe-to-toe but stressed other kinds of fighting. Herakles died from magical poison. Robin Hood died from betrayal and backstabbing. Thor kills his opponent and dies of poisoning. Fafhrd didn't die, but lost a hand due to magical trickery.


I just think that's kinda unfortunate. I mean, think of it this way: imagine everyone gets access to Wizard spells (not just rituals, etc), and the Wizard only has one exclusive ability called Scholar. Which means he just learns more things. Not necessarily spells. Things. That's his job, see; he's the smartest guy, and most able to read books. So, the team designates him to do all of the learning when it comes to books and such. That's why they keep him around. He reads.A better analogy would be that there are four different kinds of spellcasters: abjurers (fighters), blasters (rogues), healer/buffers(clerics) and enchanters(wizards). Just as the different classes are good for different kinds of fighting, the different classes would be good for different kinds of magic.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 03:47 PM
Then your monsters are way too stupid. The people that know mr sword isn't very dangerous are not that uncommon. Mr Dragon knows advanced counter-strategies above and beyond that.

No, the problem is not that the monsters are stupid. There's no problem at all. The fighter gets to actually hold monster attention when it's appropriate, and he doesn't need an "aggro mechanic" to do it, because the monsters aren't played with metagame understanding of an abstract HP system.


Well DUH. My sergeant ORDERS me to do these kind of things. In fact, when I first started, I was hesitant to do these kind of things like disengaging from the current enemy and going after a better target, and I caused my side to LOSE. I didn't think clearly in the heat of battle because I was INEXPERIENCED. We discuss these kinds of strategies and we practice them, and after having been in the group for close to a year, I'm a bit better now and I am disciplined enough to ignore the closest threat and go for the better target. This is a part of real battle. You wanna come and sword-fight with our group? We'll teach you a lot about real combat.

You have a sergeant that regularly orders you to engage in suicidal courses of action?

Wow. I'm glad this is only a passtime for you. The fact that you think this is anything like real combat, however, is pretty much appalling.

Sholos
2008-09-15, 03:48 PM
umm the way we play, if we get hit, we are "dead" But if I can take 2 or 3 of them out from behind before I "die", I've DONE MY JOB. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

In order of importance: 1) Completing Objective 2) Troop wellfare.

Armies that care nothing for their troops' lives either have very low morale (and thus are easy to rout) or are made of fanatics. Which is yours? If neither, then your situation in no way represents reality.

As well, if you're taking out 2 or 3 of them from behind before any person manages to touch you even once, then one of a few things is happening. Either your group horribly outnumbers theirs (since isolated people tend to fall very quickly), you guys aren't playing with mechanics that simulate real life very well, or you're playing against another group that doesn't really know what it's doing. High-priority targets should never really be susceptible to the mad-rush tactic if the sides are fairly equal in number and skill. So your example does not impress me in the slightest.

Also, sacrificing grunts wholesale tends to lead to defeat in the long run. The only time your mindset is appropriate is when the objective is something vital and/or turns a war. Like capturing the Enigma machine from the Germans. That would be something worth giving your life for. You'll notice that plenty of armies retreat from battles they are losing rather than give everything to "Complete the Objective".


And in DnD, if you get hit, so what? Beyond the low levels, HP damage isn't that impressive for the most part. My monsters know this. The PCS that play in my campaign knows this. Once you've gotten enoughe xperienced beyond level 6 or so, you've seen enought hat you know this unless you have animal intelligence.

See, that isn't how it should be. A 6th level orc shouldn't feel immune to a sword because he thinks, "I'm 6th level." As far as he's concerned, a single good shot is enough to take him out. 2E had far better HP mechanics.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 03:51 PM
You were talking about high value targets, not taking out 2 or 3 opponents. Put the goalposts back, please. Also, if you were really attacking an enemy infantry force, I daresay you would not be willing to get your ass shot off just to kill 2 or 3 of them.
Umm no. I'm talking about, using swords and spears, in a line battle. Say...5v5 or 6v6. If I can run behind the enemy line, and take our a third of their forces before I get hit, I have done my job. Getting behind the enemy line is a high value objective in line battles. Once you get your enemies to break formation, they're done for.



So you admit that your monsters posess blantant metagame knowledge. I'm glad I don't play with a DM that does that.

No, a monster isn't supposed to know that becaus they're level 6. All combat in the world doesn't have to be resolved according to combat rules. They're an abstraction to handle combat the PCs are in; every other combat is a DM fiat affair and doesn't need to reflect those rules.And I'm glad you're not at my table complaining.

I admit to no such things. In my view, the monsters have perfectly good reason to know the IC-equivalents of the knowledge due to their experience. And most, if not all combat, should be resovles according to combat rules. Or else just go play free-form. If the rules are bad, you should amend/houserule them, but having rules is important.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 03:55 PM
Armies that care nothing for their troops' lives either have very low morale (and thus are easy to rout) or are made of fanatics. Which is yours? If neither, then your situation in no way represents reality.

As well, if you're taking out 2 or 3 of them from behind before any person manages to touch you even once, then one of a few things is happening. Either your group horribly outnumbers theirs (since isolated people tend to fall very quickly), you guys aren't playing with mechanics that simulate real life very well, or you're playing against another group that doesn't really know what it's doing. High-priority targets should never really be susceptible to the mad-rush tactic if the sides are fairly equal in number and skill. So your example does not impress me in the slightest.

Also, sacrificing grunts wholesale tends to lead to defeat in the long run. The only time your mindset is appropriate is when the objective is something vital and/or turns a war. Like capturing the Enigma machine from the Germans. That would be something worth giving your life for. You'll notice that plenty of armies retreat from battles they are losing rather than give everything to "Complete the Objective".

I invite you to come play with us then. Come look at how we do real battles. We recreate and practice 16th century style european fighting arts. I currently am still practicing with the longsword.

It is quite EASY to touch someone when you are behind them and they are concerned with people in front of them. In game terms, they're either flat-footed or I get Flanking bonuses. It doesn't always work out, but having a skirmisher get behind the enemy line is a very good tactic.


See, that isn't how it should be. A 6th level orc shouldn't feel immune to a sword because he thinks, "I'm 6th level." As far as he's concerned, a single good shot is enough to take him out. 2E had far better HP mechanics.
It shouldn't be, but it is. He has been cut before. And by the time he reaches evel 10, he'll see that cuts are affecting him less and less. This is why when *I* build melee-types to go up against the party, sometimes they'll have things like Thicket of Blades, Improved Trip, Stand Still, Mage Slayer, etc.

Sholos
2008-09-15, 03:55 PM
No one is claiming the mechanics that make Fighters useless on the battlefield don't exist. What we're claiming is that those mechanics are a very poor representation of actual combat and need a heavy dose of common sense added to them.

I think one of the major problems is that HP in 3E is kind of a Shroedinger's Cat. It is, at the same time, physical damage and not physical damage. It has to be physical damage, because even 1 damage against something will introduce poison that requires a wound. However, having it be purely physical damage makes no sense in most other circumstances. See the 10th level character who doesn't care about being impaled because "it's only 12 damage and affects me less than it did 5 levels ago".

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 03:57 PM
No one is claiming the mechanics that make Fighters useless on the battlefield don't exist. What we're claiming is that those mechanics are a very poor representation of actual combat and need a heavy dose of common sense added to them.

Then you're trying to patch a mechanical hole with RP. Which is fine, if you force your PCs to also ignore the same mechanics for RP.

It would be far easier to write combat mechanics that better suit how you feel combat should work out. I would say that 4e has done this admirably - at least, it has added mechanics that allow the Fighter to actually appear more threatening to those he is fighting.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 03:58 PM
No one is claiming the mechanics that make Fighters useless on the battlefield don't exist. What we're claiming is that those mechanics are a very poor representation of actual combat and need a heavy dose of common sense added to them.

DnD is *not* supposed to be an accurate representation of actual combat though. And because I want my world to be internally consistent, I'm not going to disengage mechanics from rp. It just doesn't make sense and my players will poke lots of holes in my world.

What I do, however, if optimize my Fighter-types as much as possible to make thema bigger threat, and perhaps give them more wealth.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 03:58 PM
Well, that's what I get for doing an ambush with insufficient scouting, eh? :smalltongue:

Of course all your assumptions won't be correct, but you have to go with what you know. Between a chance of taking out a major threat to our band and the chance that I spend a few seconds killing a nobody, I'd still still kill him.

Would you? That just cost you the fight. He was really a monk; the wizard is actually that elf in the chain shirt.. and you didn't take him out as readily as you thought for just that reason.


At worst, Freddy and I spent a few seconds slaughtering a nobody while getting out of arms reach of the guys with swords. If the guys with swords decided to turn around, they'd have my boys at their backs - and I know they can't dodge as nimbly as I can. If my boys can't stand up to the sword-swingers for a few seconds, then I gravely miscalculated when assaulting this band.

Can't they? One of those "guys with a sword" is a Swordsage(high DEX and WIS). One is a Warblade (uncanny dodge) another is a Barbarian (more of the same, and if we're high enough level, neither of these two can be flanked.


And if they decided to turn tail and run after seeing me take out a potentially thread in short order? I'll turn tail and run too, go back to the bandit camp and ambush the yellow-backs. Then we'll strike camp and find some outlaws with more spines. :smallamused:

In which case, the travellers won because they denied you your objective.


'course, if I'm dead, then it doesn't matter, does it? But I minimized my risks in a extremely risky situation - it's the same thing you or anyone else would do if they were the bandits. I certainly wouldn't run into the fight just to wet my pants 'cause some guy with a sword is in my face!

You didn't minimize risks at all, unless the party conformed to a stereotype you have no reason to assume is the norm. My Gish-Warblade-Barbarian-Cleric party... hmmm.. is there some reason why it's less likely as a PC group than your stereotype?


Because it's not risky for me. I use it all the time, and someone takes a swing at me, at worst, once every 20 times. And then they don't even always hit! You are just ignoring how the rules work, and I can't tell why.

Easy

1) Getting hit that one time out of 20 or 30.. that's one time too many as far as Mr. Bandit is concerned. It hurts. I don't know why you think people should be nonchalant about an occasional sword hit just because of mechanics abstractions

2) The bandit doesn't know how the rules work. He knows he doesn't want to get hit with swords.


How about by fighting lots of people and never seeing any of their allies die in one hit? Does that count as knowledge? If not, why?

What in blazes are you talking about?


I appreciate that you'd like things to conform to your perception of How Things Work, but doesn't it bother you that you ignore the very mechanics that describe How Things Work in the game you are playing? If it doesn't, you would be better of playing a Narrative system where the rules actually don't matter.

It doesn't bother me because I don't ignore the mechanics. You just can't stop giving metagame knowledge to NPCs and using sterotypes.

You're prentending the damage system is a simulation of what's happening. It's not; it's an abstraction.

nagora
2008-09-15, 04:00 PM
See, that isn't how it should be. A 6th level orc shouldn't feel immune to a sword because he thinks, "I'm 6th level." As far as he's concerned, a single good shot is enough to take him out. 2E had far better HP mechanics.
Much as I agree that 2e was better (not as good as 1e, of course), the 6th level character is free to think "He'll never land a good shot on me; I'm bloody brilliant!" because s/he is 6th level and knows how many combats they've survived.

Look at the final fight in Hellboy II: in AD&D terms they're both "hitting" almost every attack, but the only wound is a small scratch on HB's cheek. They're losing HP, but they're not getting killed because their skill and experience is turning blows that would kill into near-misses. In combat against a normal person, either character would be supremely confident of coming out without any wounds. That's how high level fighters should work, IMO.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 04:01 PM
Actually, with high enough Tumble, success rate is 100%. If getting hit 1 in 20 times is too much for mr bandit to handle, WHY IN THE 9 HELLS IS HE A BANDIT?

Think about it, the only people who become adventurers or bandits (and monsters who go out and raid towns and stuff) are those who can accept risks. Or else they stay home and farm.

Sholos
2008-09-15, 04:03 PM
Then you're trying to patch a mechanical hole with RP. Which is fine, if you force your PCs to also ignore the same mechanics for RP.

It would be far easier to write combat mechanics that better suit how you feel combat should work out. I would say that 4e has done this admirably - at least, it has added mechanics that allow the Fighter to actually appear more threatening to those he is fighting.

Well, yes I agree that the mechanics of 4E represent how a fighter is supposed to act than 3E's mechanics. I think we are not arguing the same point, mine being that for 3E combat to make sense as a real situation (and not a video game where half the point is to take advantage of the system), a heavy dollop of common sense from the DM and Ps (not PCs, as that stands for Player Characters, and the characters need not be sensible) is needed.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 04:04 PM
Umm no. I'm talking about, using swords and spears, in a line battle. Say...5v5 or 6v6. If I can run behind the enemy line, and take our a third of their forces before I get hit, I have done my job. Getting behind the enemy line is a high value objective in line battles. Once you get your enemies to break formation, they're done for.

How exactly are "line battles" of 5 or 6 to a side relevant either to real life combat or to combat in D&D?


And I'm glad you're not at my table complaining.

Me too. I wouldn't stay at your table as soon as I found out monsters made decisions based on metagame knowledge.


I admit to no such things. In my view, the monsters have perfectly good reason to know the IC-equivalents of the knowledge due to their experience. And most, if not all combat, should be resovles according to combat rules. Or else just go play free-form. If the rules are bad, you should amend/houserule them, but having rules is important.

Having rules is important for the portions of the game the PCs directly participate in. However, if they're sitting there watching a duel between two high-level NPCs, there's nothing wrong with one of them running the other one through in one hit.

It has nothing to do with "free-form" or any of that nonsense. It has to do with understanding the rules are not a simulation; they're an abstraction. Hit Points are an abstraction.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 04:06 PM
Look at the final fight in Hellboy II: in AD&D terms they're both "hitting" almost every attack, but the only wound is a small scratch on HB's cheek. They're losing HP, but they're not getting killed because their skill and experience is turning blows that would kill into near-misses. In combat against a normal person, either character would be supremely confident of coming out without any wounds. That's how high level fighters should work, IMO.

This. The level 10 Fighter is not getting impaled by the spear. He's simply too good for that. He never makes such a crude mistake. Even the critical hit is only a flesh wound as opposed to hit to a vital organ. The Orc isn't fearless because he could take infinite amount of hits (while he certainly can take more hits than your average warrior, he's still mortal), but because he knows that he's fully capable of simply averting the serious hits vs. anything but the most powerful creatures in the realms.

And high HP is pretty handy for making fights last longer. D&D isn't gritty fantasy and thus doesn't represent that well - in D&D, people don't die in one hit.

Arakune
2008-09-15, 04:07 PM
Think about it, the only people who become adventurers or bandits (and monsters who go out and raid towns and stuff) are those who can accept risks. Or else they stay home and farm.

You have to admit, he have a good point.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 04:09 PM
You're prentending the damage system is a simulation of what's happening. It's not; it's an abstraction.

Bravo! That is the line for this argument.

Warning: Sarcasm ahead
HP clearly don't represent anything in D&D, nor do they have any effect on the parties in game. There is no reason that anyone in the world should have noticed that those grizzled warriors just can't be killed with a single sword-thrust, nor that Ogres can take dozens of arrows before breaking a sweat.

I trust you hold onto your player's character sheets and make all their rolls for them, since such blatant out-of-game knowledge should never influence their action. Why, I wonder how they know that they'll need healing?

OK. Now that that's out of my system, I see I can't say anything more to you on this. If you don't accept that monsters can notice the effects of the rules system (such as, say, being able to drop an AoO on a wizard that is casting a spell, or that wizards are less sturdy than fighters) then I can only hope that you impose the same constraints on your PCs.

As for the bandits: I do enjoy having you change the terms of fight on me. Since this scenario appears to be a no-win for me, I have to wonder why I bothered jumping these adventurers in the first place. Perhaps you'd like to tell me why me and my band of lightly armored bandits decided to slug it out with seasoned fighters in heavier armor than I have then? :smallamused:

I stand by my analysis, and I bet that most other people would have done the same thing in my situation - phrased as it was.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 04:09 PM
Actually, with high enough Tumble, success rate is 100%. If getting hit 1 in 20 times is too much for mr bandit to handle, WHY IN THE 9 HELLS IS HE A BANDIT?

Yeah, IF tumble is high enough. What level are bandits, typically, and do they all have arbitrarily high DEX scores and never wear armor that incur a penalty.. or have to tumble past more than one opponent?

If getting shot one time is too much for a soldier, why is he a soldier?

Well gee... let's think about it. Because he's trying to accomplish something without getting hit AT ALL maybe?


Think about it, the only people who become adventurers or bandits (and monsters who go out and raid towns and stuff) are those who can accept risks. Or else they stay home and farm.

Accepting some risks does not mean you'll accept any risk, nor does it mean you'll keep taking the same one after a traumatic experience.. assuming you're still alive.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 04:09 PM
How exactly are "line battles" of 5 or 6 to a side relevant either to real life combat or to combat in D&D?



Me too. I wouldn't stay at your table as soon as I found out monsters made decisions based on metagame knowledge.



Having rules is important for the portions of the game the PCs directly participate in. However, if they're sitting there watching a duel between two high-level NPCs, there's nothing wrong with one of them running the other one through in one hit.

It has nothing to do with "free-form" or any of that nonsense. It has to do with understanding the rules are not a simulation; they're an abstraction. Hit Points are an abstraction.
And I would advise you to go elsewhere as you wouldn't fit in to my group. Your definition of metagame knowledge is too different from mine. My players like how I DM. It's why they stick around.

The line battle example is mostly to demonstrate how I can, while engaged with one target, disengage and go to another and NOT GET HIT. I do it in real life, and so can DnD characters. Besides, 5v5 is a closer to DnD than modern armies clashing, don't you think?

Sholos
2008-09-15, 04:11 PM
This. The level 10 Fighter is not getting impaled by the spear. He's simply too good for that. He never makes such a crude mistake. Even the critical hit is only a flesh wound as opposed to hit to a vital organ. The Orc isn't fearless because he could take infinite amount of hits (while he certainly can take more hits than your average warrior, he's still mortal), but because he knows that he's fully capable of simply averting the serious hits vs. anything but the most powerful creatures in the realms.

And high HP is pretty handy for making fights last longer. D&D isn't gritty fantasy and thus doesn't represent that well - in D&D, people don't die in one hit.

This is how it is handled by the mechanics, yes, but a real fighter isn't just going to assume that he's perfect. He's going to know that, yes, a single sword thrust can end him, and he's going to be wary about giving someone that opportunity. Being confident is one thing. Knowing your HP is another.


You have to admit, he have a good point.

Good doesn't necessarily mean relevant. Being willing to take risks doesn't mean not dying from them.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 04:12 PM
This is how it is handled by the mechanics, yes, but a real fighter isn't just going to assume that he's perfect. He's going to know that, yes, a single sword thrust can end him, and he's going to be wary about giving someone that opportunity. Being confident is one thing. Knowing your HP is another.

D&D world doesn't work like that. Since the character in question lives in the said world, isn't it likely that it knows the way that world works, not the way some completely disassociated world it's supposedly trying to simulate does?

Frosty
2008-09-15, 04:13 PM
Yeah, IF tumble is high enough. What level are bandits, typically, and do they all have arbitrarily high DEX scores and never wear armor that incur a penalty.. or have to tumble past more than one opponent?

If getting shot one time is too much for a soldier, why is he a soldier?

Well gee... let's think about it. Because he's trying to accomplish something without getting hit AT ALL maybe?



Accepting some risks does not mean you'll accept any risk, nor does it mean you'll keep taking the same one after a traumatic experience.. assuming you're still alive.

you don't want to take unnecessary risks of course, but a soldier in a battle if always at risk. A stray bullet can come at any time. The soldier accepts that because he's got a job to do. Perhaps your PCs also feel a strong devotion to duty and know theyv'e got a job to stop Mr Vecna from taking over the world. And perhaps Mr. Bandit feels that he's not doing much against Mr. Fullplate and would rather try his luck against Mr Robes?

If I can move past opponents in real life, then DnD abstracted combat can certainly allow for it as well. DnD happens to use the Tumble mechanic.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 04:20 PM
Bravo! That is the line for this argument.

Warning: Strawman ahead
HP clearly don't represent anything in D&D, nor do they have any effect on the parties in game. There is no reason that anyone in the world should have noticed that those grizzled warriors just can't be killed with a single sword-thrust, nor that Ogres can take dozens of arrows before breaking a sweat.

I trust you hold onto your player's character sheets and make all their rolls for them, since such blatant out-of-game knowledge should never influence their action. Why, I wonder how they know that they'll need healing?

Fixed.

Obviously hitpoints represent something - an amalgamation of things, in fact. Luck, fatigue, physical harm, etc.

A character does not KNOW that he can take a certain amount of damage. When he runs past someone with a sword, as far as he knows

So yes, if my players do have characters acting blase' about hitpoint loss I do take issue with it. A person who's just wandering along happily at 40% hitpoints and not at least RPing a little discomfort or fatigue is probably not going to get very good RP XP from me.


OK. Now that that's out of my system, I see I can't say anything more to you on this. If you don't accept that monsters can notice the effects of the rules system (such as, say, being able to drop an AoO on a wizard that is casting a spell, or that wizards are less sturdy than fighters) then I can only hope that you impose the same constraints on your PCs.

I haven't said that. I'm glad you're stopping though, beasue dealing with the endless strawman arguments is getting tiring. Monsters notice the effects of the rules, but only in an in-character way. The more abstract the rule is, the less it's going to be something they notice.


As for the bandits: I do enjoy having you change the terms of fight on me. Since this scenario appears to be a no-win for me, I have to wonder why I bothered jumping these adventurers in the first place. Perhaps you'd like to tell me why me and my band of lightly armored bandits decided to slug it out with seasoned fighters in heavier armor than I have then? :smallamused:

I didn't "change the terms of the fight" on you. You set up a stereotyped adventuring party where all the conditions assisted you in showing what you wanted to show in that case. I was pointing out that you can't assume that nice neat scenario is always, or even often, the case.

You shouldn't have made up a scenario that was designed to be the best-case for your argument and expected to represent it as a reason why things should generally be that way.

I don't know why your bandits are attacking adventurers; you came up with the bandit-vs-adventurer thing.


I stand by my analysis, and I bet that most other people would have done the same thing in my situation - phrased as it was.

Yes, most people customarily will try to invent scenarios where everything is ideal to prove their point, then represent the ideal as the norm.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 04:23 PM
I didn't "change the terms of the fight" on you. You set up a stereotyped adventuring party where all the conditions assisted you in showing what you wanted to show in that case. I was pointing out that you can't assume that nice neat scenario is always, or even often, the case.

You shouldn't have made up a scenario that was designed to be the best-case for your argument and expected to represent it as a reason why things should generally be that way.

I don't know why your bandits are attacking adventurers; you came up with the bandit-vs-adventurer thing.

O RLY? :smallamused:


To further prove my point, take this situation:

You're in a bandit group. You are waiting along a trail, hidden in the bushes, for someone to come along. Along comes a group. This group includes two guys with leather armor (one of which carries a shortsword and one of which has two blades on his belt), one guy with chainmail on who has an arming sword at his waist and a shield on his back, another guy in a breastplate with the symbol of Tyr on it, and another guy in plain robes in the middle of the group. The order of march for the group is the two-sword guy first, then the chainmail guy, followed by the guy in a robe, followed by the guy with the breastplate, ending with the guy in leather with the shortsword. You are in front of the group when your ambush springs. All of the group pulls their weapons, and you end up paired against the guy with the arming sword and shield. Your friends are currently matched up with the guy in leather, the two-sword guy, and the guy in breastplate. What do you do?

Well, what's your response?

EDIT:
Yes, I see you didn't make up the Bandits either, but you did decide they were all sword sages or whatnot. BTW, I wasn't phased if the "wizard" turned out to be a monk - they die just as easily :smallbiggrin:

Sholos
2008-09-15, 04:24 PM
As for the bandits: I do enjoy having you change the terms of fight on me. Since this scenario appears to be a no-win for me, I have to wonder why I bothered jumping these adventurers in the first place. Perhaps you'd like to tell me why me and my band of lightly armored bandits decided to slug it out with seasoned fighters in heavier armor than I have then? :smallamused:
To be perfectly fair, I (the originator of the challenge) didn't change anything, and I thought it was fairly clear from the descriptions (leather armor, chain mail, breastplate) that these were low level adventurers (see, I even gave you a little metagame implications). The only deception on my part was having the robed guy not be a wizard, and not telling you that this was a real-time fight. Out of those two, the only one you can sort of fault me for is the changing of the system. Then again, I never said it was turn-based, either.


I stand by my analysis, and I bet that most other people would have done the same thing in my situation - phrased as it was.

You really think so? What if the bandit group was new? Had only hit a few people before and feeling high about themselves? Had never encountered a wizard before? Simply misjudged the difficulty of the ambush? There's all kinds of perfectly valid reasons for a group not to try to gank the wizard first.

__________________________



D&D world doesn't work like that. Since the character in question lives in the said world, isn't it likely that it knows the way that world works, not the way some completely disassociated world it's supposedly trying to simulate does?

Unless you're playing an OOTS-style game, you should treat the campaign world as blood-and-flesh, not mechanics. That's the whole point. This means that while monsters will have a vague understanding of the rules (low on HP means, "I'm hurting bad"), they shouldn't be exploiting the rules to gain a mechanical advantage.
__________________________


you don't want to take unnecessary risks of course, but a soldier in a battle if always at risk. A stray bullet can come at any time. The soldier accepts that because he's got a job to do. Perhaps your PCs also feel a strong devotion to duty and know theyv'e got a job to stop Mr Vecna from taking over the world. And perhaps Mr. Bandit feels that he's not doing much against Mr. Fullplate and would rather try his luck against Mr Robes?

If I can move past opponents in real life, then DnD abstracted combat can certainly allow for it as well. DnD happens to use the Tumble mechanic.

The only reason you are able to do this is because your opponents are themselves distracted by your friends. Since (by your very arguments) this doesn't occur in D&D games, that means your example doesn't apply. Think about it. How many times (in D&D) do you get to tumble past an opponent and take down two or three other targets in the same round? Pretty much never unless you've got Great Cleave along with high damage/low-HP critters. And then, by your arguments, you'll fall to those same creatures. In fact, you are arguing using a system that is entirely alien to D&D mechanics.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 04:25 PM
you don't want to take unnecessary risks of course, but a soldier in a battle if always at risk. A stray bullet can come at any time.

You're confusing inherent risk with calculated risk. A stray bullet can come at any time, but that does not mean the soldier won't try to make use of cover to mitigate that to the greatest extent possible.


The soldier accepts that because he's got a job to do. Perhaps your PCs also feel a strong devotion to duty and know theyv'e got a job to stop Mr Vecna from taking over the world. And perhaps Mr. Bandit feels that he's not doing much against Mr. Fullplate and would rather try his luck against Mr Robes?

Maybe, maybe not. You can't come to the conclusion that people will ALWAYS ignore the fighter to attack the mage because bandits MIGHT be ineffective against a fighter sometimes, nor can you assume that the guy in robes is a vulnerable wizard.


If I can move past opponents in real life, then DnD abstracted combat can certainly allow for it as well. DnD happens to use the Tumble mechanic.

No kidding. Once again, no one has said it's never possible. The point is that if attackers do this all the time because "there's a tumble mechanic and they have a lot of hitpoints" then they're being metagamed. A game world where people don't care about experienceing pain is far from believable.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 04:26 PM
This is how it is handled by the mechanics, yes, but a real fighter isn't just going to assume that he's perfect. He's going to know that, yes, a single sword thrust can end him, and he's going to be wary about giving someone that opportunity. Being confident is one thing. Knowing your HP is another.

We ain't playing the real world, son. We're playing a game of extreme heroics and high fantasy magic. We play in a world where getting run through may only mean a minor inconvenience, and where dying means being set back 10,000 gold.

If you want to play a nitty-gritty world, that's one way of doing it, but there's also the world where your cures for pain are just a cleric away!

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 04:28 PM
Unless you're playing an OOTS-style game, you should treat the campaign world as blood-and-flesh, not mechanics. That's the whole point. This means that while monsters will have a vague understanding of the rules (low on HP means, "I'm hurting bad"), they shouldn't be exploiting the rules to gain a mechanical advantage.

No, but they should be playing in accordance to the rules of the game, not "how the rules should be". They've lived their lives in that world and have a perfect grasp of how lethal fights are and so on (especially seeing how common strife is in D&D). It's not metagame for them to know how likely they're to be hurt lethally vs. just taking some scratches and cuts. They've fought before. They know their own ability. And making them pretend they think the world works in a way it doesn't frankly just doesn't work. It is an attempted simulation, nothing more. The characters in the attempted simulation should play according to the rules of the attempted simulation. And since it's everyday life for them, they should also have a pretty good grasp of how things work in that world (they obviously don't know how things work anywhere else like in our world).

Sholos
2008-09-15, 04:30 PM
We ain't playing the real world, son. We're playing a game of extreme heroics and high fantasy magic. We play in a world where getting run through may only mean a minor inconvenience, and where dying means being set back 10,000 gold.

If you want to play a nitty-gritty world, that's one way of doing it, but there's also the world where your cures for pain are just a cleric away!

So, what you're saying is that you run OOTS-style games? Fine. In that style of game it makes sense to use metagame knowledge.

However, outside that style is where getting run through generally means death, or at least sever impairment, and is something that characters actively try to avoid.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 04:32 PM
To be perfectly fair, I (the originator of the challenge) didn't change anything, and I thought it was fairly clear from the descriptions (leather armor, chain mail, breastplate) that these were low level adventurers (see, I even gave you a little metagame implications). The only deception on my part was having the robed guy not be a wizard, and not telling you that this was a real-time fight. Out of those two, the only one you can sort of fault me for is the changing of the system. Then again, I never said it was turn-based, either.

Yeah, I noticed there was a cross-breeding in the argument. I am perfectly happy to continue to discuss with you though.

EDIT: Oh, and if we're not doing this in D&D, then I would just sit back and shoot arrows at them until they died. I mean, I don't have "sneak attacks" so I might as well shove huge bits of wood into them until they die. Too bad bows are gimped in D&D. :smalltongue:


You really think so? What if the bandit group was new? Had only hit a few people before and feeling high about themselves? Had never encountered a wizard before? Simply misjudged the difficulty of the ambush? There's all kinds of perfectly valid reasons for a group not to try to gank the wizard first.

In all those situations, it's because the group is "green." They would die just as fast, if not faster, than my sample group did. Inexperience and bad tactics certainly won't improve your chances at a fight. They may influence a bandit's battle plan, but hopefully your PCs aren't the only people wandering around with some clue as to what they'll be facing.

My point was that a bandit group that decided to attack a group of adventurers had better try to take the wizard out first, or they die.

I can imagine no situation where it would have been better to continue a one-on-one fight with a band of armored and armed fighters at melee, when there is a soft, and potentially dangerous, target in the back ranks that is easy to get to - at least not one where the bandits would otherwise have won. Can you?

Frosty
2008-09-15, 04:36 PM
You're confusing inherent risk with calculated risk. A stray bullet can come at any time, but that does not mean the soldier won't try to make use of cover to mitigate that to the greatest extent possible.



Maybe, maybe not. You can't come to the conclusion that people will ALWAYS ignore the fighter to attack the mage because bandits MIGHT be ineffective against a fighter sometimes, nor can you assume that the guy in robes is a vulnerable wizard.



No kidding. Once again, no one has said it's never possible. The point is that if attackers do this all the time because "there's a tumble mechanic and they have a lot of hitpoints" then they're being metagamed. A game world where people don't care about experienceing pain is far from believable.

I never said they always do it. As a DM, sometimes they'll realize that going after mr wizard is better, and sometimes not. Sometimes they may be too concentrated on the fighter in front of line. But like I said, I base this off of the EXPERIENCE and QUALITY of the enemies, and off of how well my layers roleplay their taunts and covnersations with the enemy.

Bob the Urgh
2008-09-15, 04:57 PM
"The object to winning a war is not to die for your country, it's to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his"
-General Patton


I really doubt a dragon is afraid of both the fighter and the wizard.

Sholos
2008-09-15, 04:58 PM
Yeah, I noticed there was a cross-breeding in the argument. I am perfectly happy to continue to discuss with you though.

EDIT: Oh, and if we're not doing this in D&D, then I would just sit back and shoot arrows at them until they died. I mean, I don't have "sneak attacks" so I might as well shove huge bits of wood into them until they die. Too bad bows are gimped in D&D. :smalltongue:



In all those situations, it's because the group is "green." They would die just as fast, if not faster, than my sample group did. Inexperience and bad tactics certainly won't improve your chances at a fight. They may influence a bandit's battle plan, but hopefully your PCs aren't the only people wandering around with some clue as to what they'll be facing.

My point was that a bandit group that decided to attack a group of adventurers had better try to take the wizard out first, or they die.

I can imagine no situation where it would have been better to continue a one-on-one fight with a band of armored and armed fighters at melee, when there is a soft, and potentially dangerous, target in the back ranks that is easy to get to - at least not one where the bandits would otherwise have won. Can you?

No, but that wasn't my point. My point wasn't to say that it was ever better mechanically to go after the non-wizards. My point was that there are perfectly valid reasons in-game for things not to go after the casters.
________________________________


I never said they always do it. As a DM, sometimes they'll realize that going after mr wizard is better, and sometimes not. Sometimes they may be too concentrated on the fighter in front of line. But like I said, I base this off of the EXPERIENCE and QUALITY of the enemies, and off of how well my layers roleplay their taunts and covnersations with the enemy.

*Headdesk*

That's what we've been saying! That it depends on the monster and the situation. The only part we differ on is how much metagame knowledge the monsters should have. You seem, to me, to be saying that monsters should have an open rulebook in front of them so that they can plan everything out.

Back to the line-fighting thing. You never really answered my question. I wanted to know if you would act differently given the knowledge that if you "died" you would not be allowed back into the group. Never mind that this doesn't make sense from the perspective of a game. Treat it as real life.

Now, what if all surviving members of the winning were given $100? $1,000? Would you still be as willing to sacrifice yourself for the team? Oh, and no one on your team is willing to share their winnings with you.

How about if every time you're "killed" the winning team gets to take your stuff, and you have to pay for repairs to equipment? Still willing?

Okay, the last two are more along the lines of a bandit group than a military, but what about the other one? Though I wouldn't mind seeing your opinion on the other two, since those are pretty much how it's going to work with a bandit group.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 05:06 PM
No, but that wasn't my point. My point wasn't to say that it was ever better mechanically to go after the non-wizards. My point was that there are perfectly valid reasons in-game for things not to go after the casters.
________________________________



*Headdesk*

That's what we've been saying! That it depends on the monster and the situation. The only part we differ on is how much metagame knowledge the monsters should have. You seem, to me, to be saying that monsters should have an open rulebook in front of them so that they can plan everything out.

Back to the line-fighting thing. You never really answered my question. I wanted to know if you would act differently given the knowledge that if you "died" you would not be allowed back into the group. Never mind that this doesn't make sense from the perspective of a game. Treat it as real life.

Now, what if all surviving members of the winning were given $100? $1,000? Would you still be as willing to sacrifice yourself for the team? Oh, and no one on your team is willing to share their winnings with you.

How about if every time you're "killed" the winning team gets to take your stuff, and you have to pay for repairs to equipment? Still willing?

Okay, the last two are more along the lines of a bandit group than a military, but what about the other one? Though I wouldn't mind seeing your opinion on the other two, since those are pretty much how it's going to work with a bandit group.

Unless there is a proper IC reason, higher level monsters should have a *lot* of knowledge because that's precisely why thery've survived for so long. They have all that knowledge, but they don't use it *all* the time due to whatever. This is a bit different than them not having the knowledge in the first place.

Now me personally, I would be happy to sacrifice myself if it were for a GOOD CAUSE. Bandits that don't have much Esprit de Corps may not be so disciplined, you're right. That's why low level bandits get wiped out by adventurers, because they can't use the most optimal tactics. HIGH level bandits, however, may have developed enough trust and instinct and displine to do these things and sometimes go for the wizard, for example.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 05:07 PM
No, but that wasn't my point. My point wasn't to say that it was ever better mechanically to go after the non-wizards. My point was that there are perfectly valid reasons in-game for things not to go after the casters.

I mean, yes, but are they really the reasons you want to give to bandits? Maybe if they're a random encounter - some schmoes who just got cocky, or are hicks from the local town trying to make a quick killing - but surely not for even mid-level bandits. How did they get so powerful if they can't even identify a wizard as the guy with robes?

In any case, after he casts his first spell, the bandits are either going to run (OMG! Wizard!) or they're going to slip past the sword-swingers and gank the wizard. I can't imagine any situation where the bandits would just keep fighting the sword-swingers after a wizard has been revealed - they should either run ('cause magic is scary) or kill ('cause magic users are squishy but dangerous). This is even more true if the bandits know they can evade the sword-swingers without any real risk (say, by being 4th level Rogues).

Do you agree with that?

Lapak
2008-09-15, 05:10 PM
So, what you're saying is that you run OOTS-style games? Fine. In that style of game it makes sense to use metagame knowledge.While I agree with you on this point in general, you're making a leap here. The existence of healing magics (and resurrection) as a matter of definite fact would most definitely change an individual fighter's risk assessment. If I knew - not in mechanical terms, but as a fact of life - that being killed was not permanent, and that my buddies would raise me from the dead provided we survived, then I might willingly expose myself to a lethal sword thrust in order to take down the guy who has enough power to tip the balance against us. On top of that, mortal wounds aren't mortal with even a low-level cleric around, and most wounds take a few minutes to kill. And that's not playing OOtS-style, that's recognizing that the rules are actually different with magic in the equation.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 05:10 PM
No, but that wasn't my point. My point wasn't to say that it was ever better mechanically to go after the non-wizards. My point was that there are perfectly valid reasons in-game for things not to go after the casters.

This is why you OPTIMIZE your non-wizards so they can't be ignored. In-game is tied intimately to mechanics. Getting slashed once is not a valid reason to be worried in my world of DnD. The paladin in my group certainly doesn't mind doing it in order to help defend an ally or to kill a dangerous enemy.

Yes, not every enemy will do this. Some will, some won't.


While I agree with you on this point in general, you're making a leap here. The existence of healing magics (and resurrection) as a matter of definite fact would most definitely change an individual fighter's risk assessment. If I knew - not in mechanical terms, but as a fact of life - that being killed was not permanent, and that my buddies would raise me from the dead provided we survived, then I might willingly expose myself to a lethal sword thrust in order to take down the guy who has enough power to tip the balance against us. On top of that, mortal wounds aren't mortal with even a low-level cleric around, and most wounds take a few minutes to kill. And that's not playing OOtS-style, that's recognizing that the rules are actually different with magic in the equation.

Quoted for truth. The mechanical existence of healing magic and Raise dead type magic makes everything much less lethal. If you houserule that raise dead doesn't exist, then it's a modified 3.5 now and we're not talking about the same thing.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-15, 05:15 PM
Also, if you're arguing for using the mechanics of the game to base your decisions off of, then you've proved my argument that people aren't role-playing so much as roll-playing.

To further prove my point, take this situation:

You're in a bandit group. You are waiting along a trail, hidden in the bushes, for someone to come along. Along comes a group.
This group includes two guys with leather armor (one of which carries a shortsword and one of which has two blades on his belt), one guy with chainmail on who has an arming sword at his waist and a shield on his back, another guy in a breastplate with the symbol of Tyr on it, and another guy in plain robes in the middle of the group. The order of march for the group is the two-sword guy first, then the chainmail guy, followed by the guy in a robe, followed by the guy with the breastplate, ending with the guy in leather with the shortsword. You are in front of the group when your ambush springs. All of the group pulls their weapons, and you end up paired against the guy with the arming sword and shield. Your friends are currently matched up with the guy in leather, the two-sword guy, and the guy in breastplate. What do you do?



Screw this mano a mano crap and flank with my friends.
Are bandits warriors or rogues?
Breastplate (I assume Cleric) is matched up.
And both leathers are matched up.

I'd attack the robe guy or flank with the freind fighting the one weapon leather guy. Wew have a great chance of hitting him if only inleather + Flanking helps.

I don't see why I would want to face the Shield dude. He'd block my bllows with shield/sword and that would be pointless.
After weakening/finishing the guy I'm fight; attack robe guy if he casts spells and we lived.

As soon as he cast spells I'd switch to him.

After removing 1 or 2 party members of the enemy group: focus on Cleric if he casts healing spells or Fighter if no healing seen.
That would be my roleplaying.

If I was to just metagame: attack the robe guy who is either a Druid (not wildshaped) spellcasting, a Monk, an Arcane caster, or a Cloistered Cleric.
I mean that would be the most optimal plan, but a little metagame.

Metagame or not: why attack the guy who you have the least chance of hitting?
Maybe it is just me, but I never tackle hardest questions first, I deal with easiest.

Sholos
2008-09-15, 05:18 PM
I guess you missed my response to that response. When you turn your back on the sword-and-board guy, he stabs you. You die. You do not come back, because there's no way your buddies can afford it (nor do they really care).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-15, 05:22 PM
I guess you missed my response to that response. When you turn your back on the sword-and-board guy, he stabs you. You die. You do not come back, because there's no way your buddies can afford it (nor do they really care).

So what happens when I fight the sword & board guy? Does his superior armor and weapon trump my light armor and weapon?

C'mon, is there an answer to that scenario where you win? I bet not :smallamused:

Sholos
2008-09-15, 05:27 PM
So what happens when I fight the sword & board guy? Does his superior armor and weapon trump my light armor and weapon?

C'mon, is there an answer to that scenario where you win? I bet not :smallamused:

Well ..... no, not really. You are going up against the PCs, after all. :smallwink:

My only point was that it can very well be dangerous to ignore the big-sword (or even medium-sword) guy.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 05:36 PM
It's all dangerous. But you don't die from sword guy's thrust because you're good enough to turn into a flesh wound. Competent, mid level bandits know this *because* they have experienced this (in my world).

DM Raven
2008-09-15, 05:39 PM
You might be assuming too much metagame knowledge on behalf of the NPCs. A character in armor could be a fighter but it also could be a cleric, a paladin, etc. A character not wearing armor could be a wizard but it also could be a merchant, a noble, etc. A character wearing light armor could be rogue or perhaps a bard or a fighter who can't afford heavy armor.

If we assume wizards are rare in the general population, then NPCs wouldn't necessarily know that a PC is a wizard until the PC actually casts a spell (obviously there are exceptions such as if the NPCs have previous knowledge of the PCs or if the wizard starts off flying).

My take is that NPCs should attack whomever is percieved at an immediate threat. The characters in armor: threats. The guy in back with a bow and arrow: threat. The wimpy looking guy in back with a walking stick who looks like he is being escorted: not a threat unless he's a wizard/sorceror which is highly unlikely (from the NPCs point of view). Of course, once the wizard casts a spell then all bets are off.

Animals however, should probably attack whomever is closest to them. They aren't really smart enough to know that it is the wizard in back who is casting those nasty spells on them.

Overall, NPCs usually do not know the character's stats and background.

Any NPC who survives past level 1 will know to fear the dude in robes standing to the rear of the group. In a world where magic can be used in such fantastic ways, battlefield experience will tell you to kill spell-flinger first. Now, if you live in a world where...say...your party wizard is the only wizard in the country, then yes sir...I might buy your bridge. But in the standard D&D world, wizards are not rare enough for people to not fear them for, if nothing else, all the mysticism that surrounds their craft.

I agree that the 3.x rule editions didn't really put much thought into the fighter, he had potential but all his swinging and swearing turns into an impotent rage at higher level. ;p

Knaight
2008-09-15, 05:45 PM
Except for with the rules, people would have been observed backing away successfully, and getting around to the magic guy, because the fighter class has no way of preventing that. You don't have to turn your back and run, you can step backwards while still facing the enemy, or rotate around them, step away, then stab the wizard, and with the rules they can't do anything about it most of the time. Roleplaying doesn't change that at all, people have seen people get around the fighters safely without much of an issue, and people have seen what wizards are capable of. Plus even if they just manage to get behind someone and stab a scholar, thats still a positional advantage. Realistically they would be sneaking into the camp at night and killing people while asleep, after hitting the person awake with a crossbow bolt or ten. A fourth edition fighter can mark, which is a mechanic to represent people making it difficult for someone to move, by getting in their way, keeping their weapon in certain places often, etc. It makes sense for experienced troops to attack the wizard first if at all possible, without incurring a ridiculous amount of risk, and since getting around them and hitting someone who turns out not to be a threat still allows you to flank, which is typically a tactical advantage, its a good move. This isn't metagamey. Big monsters will also do the same thing, since a little pointy stick is annoying, but magic exists, armor gets in the way for most people, and the guy without any isn't acting as scared as a civilian should be. This is all for intelligent, experienced troops of course. Otherwise panic is guaranteed when fighting the swordsman.

Draz74
2008-09-15, 05:51 PM
AD&D 2e Player's Handbook
The fighter is a warrior, an expert in weapons and, if he is clever, tactics and strategy. There are many famous fighter from legend: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan, and Sinbad. History is crowded with great generals and warriors: El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius. Your fighter could be modeled after any of these, or he could be unique. A visit to your local library can uncover many heroic fighters.

Hmmm. I think I see some of our problems here.

Hannibal, Alexander, Charlemagne, Richard, Belisarius? Sure, they were probably good at combat personally. But that's not really what they're famous for. They're famous because they could lead armies successfully. You want to model that in 3e D&D, you're probably better off with the Marshal than the Fighter.

Hiawatha? I've actually heard him named as a great example of how you can have Paladins from cultures other than Western European.

Perseus? Like Hiawatha, I have my doubts that he is well-modeled as a Fighter. Frankly, Perseus's might came mostly from an over-abundance of magic items (... not compared to D&D, but compared to other Greek mythology), which he gained as a result of his devotion to Athena. Perseus almost seems like some kind of Divine Artificer.

Hercules, Beowulf, Little John, Siegfried, Sinbad? Sure, maybe they're good examples of Fighters. But they're not much like stereotypical D&D Fighters. I don't think any of them was exactly a specialist in heavy armor. And except for Little John, they tended to be solo adventurers, which are kind of the opposite of "Defenders" or guardians. (No party to protect!)

Even the 2e PHB only comes up with one example (Tristan) who really strikes me as a classic D&D Fighter, a heavily-armored combatant who's considered both defensive and dangerous in small groups. (And I have no idea why they picked Tristan, either, as opposed to any other not-particularly-pious Knight of the Round Table ...)

So I think the Fighter class in D&D really does need some more definition. Should the stereotype of heavy armor really be dropped from the idea of a Fighter character? Should they be considered Defenders, or are they really more of Strikers? Which characters from myth or history are we going to hold up as the epitome of Fighter-dom?

Weiser_Cain
2008-09-15, 05:53 PM
this makes sense on the page but in character the guy standing next to you trying you cut your head off tends to have priority.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 05:53 PM
Well but fighters *can* be defenders or strikers, depending on how you build them. Bonus feats means you build them how you want to.


this makes sense on the page but in character the guy standing next to you trying you cut your head off tends to have priority.

Trying, but failing horribly since you turn his blows into glancing hits.

Kiren
2008-09-15, 06:00 PM
If a enemy was smart, he would target the parties healing members. If the Fighter was a defender, this wouldn't be a issue and a fighter would be a more needed team member.

Knaight
2008-09-15, 06:01 PM
As you rotate around, looking for an opportunity to make a quick back step and break off without turning your back to them.

Weiser_Cain
2008-09-15, 06:01 PM
Is that some joke I'm unaware of that says fighters can't hit a target?

Frosty
2008-09-15, 06:04 PM
Is that some joke I'm unaware of that says fighters can't hit a target?

No, but HP is abstract. Your HP might represent your pool of fighting reserve. You're not run through when your opponent rolls a hit. You dodge and only get a bruise instead, but you can only do so a certain amount of times before you're too tired. At higher levels, a mere sword swing will almost always become a glancing blow (as long as you have enough HPs) so it's not a big deal.

20 HP out of 200 max health for example on an AoO from the fighter...not so scary to be honest.

Deepblue706
2008-09-15, 06:16 PM
They are. Conditionally. Just like in the real world. An armored knight is a lot stronger than a half-armored guy with a poniard - unless the guy with a dagger is behind him and he's too busy to turn around quickly. He's stronger than a hunter with a longbow - unless the hunter is 100 feet away. He's stronger with the siege operator who runs a catapult loaded with incendiary shot - as long as he's standing next to him. You can train all day, every day, in a particular style of combat - melee combat - and not be stronger than people who don't have full combat training if you oppose them in the fields that ARE specialized in. The fighter is not, and has not ever been, a warrior equally trained in every possible combat discipline - he's the straight-up warrior rather than the commando or the cannoneer.
It's not about balance, it's about different combat training being good for different things. Rogues (in 3.x and 4) are good at taking advantage of single foes who are distracted or otherwise at a disadvantage. Clerics are good at supporting their allies. The fighter is, and always has been (except mid/high level 3rd edition) the guy who can be in the middle of a combat most effectively, deal damage to anyone within reach, and not be seriously inconvenienced by being in the thick of the fight. I should note that some legendary fighters - including one of the archetype-warriors, Herakles - died specifically because their opponents opted not to go toe-to-toe but stressed other kinds of fighting. Herakles died from magical poison. Robin Hood died from betrayal and backstabbing. Thor kills his opponent and dies of poisoning. Fafhrd didn't die, but lost a hand due to magical trickery.

A better analogy would be that there are four different kinds of spellcasters: abjurers (fighters), blasters (rogues), healer/buffers(clerics) and enchanters(wizards). Just as the different classes are good for different kinds of fighting, the different classes would be good for different kinds of magic.

I uh, don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Let me start over: Fighters are supposed to be trained warriors. Trained warriors are superior to untrained warriors. Sure, the English used to train militias that used the longbow, and were probably going to kill a lot of fully trained warriors, when they themselves only knew how to use a bow. But, I'm not really talking about that.

A warrior is not someone who trains so that they can protect 3-4 other people who happen to be standing next to them, so that they can unleash the "real" attack. A warrior kills things. His method of "defense" is killing the other guy before he can do any harm to anyone else.

Rogues are not warriors. Rogues are scoundrels who happen to get an ability called "sneak attack" that lets them exploit unaware opponents. Exploiting people when their back is turned is not a specialty, unless you're explicitly a trained assassin. Why a Fighter can't exploit such an opponent can only be justified by the Rogue being an assassin, or mere game balance. There is no reason for a warrior to lack precision.

Now, if the game only ever allowed Fighters, Rangers and Paladins ever act as competent warriors, that'd be boring for a lot of people. That's the only reason why they don't blow every other class out-of-the-water when it comes to combat. Clerics were made with intent to heal and have some combat ability - why do you think they got beefed-up in 3E? They were boring to, at least, someone.

I'm not saying it's wrong for other classes to have good combat ability, because in the end, everyone is playing a hero. However, I think it's pretty damn lame that the Fighter (along with other warrior classes), the guy who would - under normal circumstances - generally kick everyone's ass, is reduced to "Defender". That's all I was lamenting about. I feel that forcing a Fighter into this category is highly artificial. Does the Defending role come with the sense to wear armor and use a shield? Sure, a Fighter might decide this is what he does best, and ensures good income for him and his party - but that is not the purpose of a mundane warrior in a fantasy RPG. The purpose of one, such as the Fighter, is to let people play a bad-ass who is highly trained on how to use weapons to kill people. And, that's all it should ever be about.

While everyone should have the right to play a bad-ass character, despite his of her background, there should not have been any decision to make a Fighter a "Defender", solely because no other class concept fits the bill better. While I see the importance of guiding people who aren't sure of what class to take, tailoring most or all aspects of a class to fulfill one specific role is silly and restricting.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 06:21 PM
the Fighter has never been shoehorned into being a defender. That is just *one* of the roles he can play. He can also play sniper and strike fairly competent with enough sourcebooks to use. The Defender is just nice to have sometimes.

Weiser_Cain
2008-09-15, 06:23 PM
No, but HP is abstract. Your HP might represent your pool of fighting reserve. You're not run through when your opponent rolls a hit. You dodge and only get a bruise instead, but you can only do so a certain amount of times before you're too tired. At higher levels, a mere sword swing will almost always become a glancing blow (as long as you have enough HPs) so it's not a big deal.

20 HP out of 200 max health for example on an AoO from the fighter...not so scary to be honest.


Ok but that's still metagaming. In character every swing is a deadly threat.

Even metagaming I can't see how fighter damage is just being disregarded. I mean unless you're suicidal you might want to worry about turning your back to and sandwich yourself between the guy with the biggest weapon to charge the highly unpredictable wizard that could have enough AC to at least hold you off long enough for the fighter to spit on his palms, take practice swing and cleanly lop your melon off. Nevermind protective spells...
And what if there are two fighters? 40 out of 200 is a bigger hit, bigger still assuming that the fighter(s) didn't just run up and say hi and you're missing a distinct chunk of your life bar. Then there's magical weapons.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 06:27 PM
Ok but that's still metagaming. In character every swing is a deadly threat.

Metagaming? The game world works in a given fashion. The characters don't live by the rules of our world. They live by the rules of the game world. In the game world, every swing is not a deadly threat to higher level characters! That's the whole point - the characters are not threatened by every attack and having fought a hundred fights, damn well know it. Why would they ever think every attack is a lethal threat if in this world, that's clearly not the case?

Weiser_Cain
2008-09-15, 06:31 PM
Game mechanics are invisible to characters.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 06:31 PM
No, in-character, an experienced character knows the difference between "Ow, that'll leave a bruise later" and "Holy crap I'm gonna DIE!" and the sword and board guy usually falls into the former category.

If someone is personally tying up TWO Fighter-types, then he might be content to just spend his turns withdrawing and leading the 2 Fighters on a wild goose chase (cue Benny Hill music). Guess what, ONE of my team just tied up TWO of his team! Holy crud that's great. Now that they've committed 2 on me, my extra guy goes and wipes the floor with the face of mr wizard. When you are outnumbered, your job is to STALL for time as your allies wipe the floor with the other enemies and hope that your allies can come back and reinforce you in time.

The wizard may or may not have higher defenses. Either way he's still by far the most dangerous. Killing the wizard will still give me the biggest chances of survival so I'll take the bruise if I must.


Game mechanics are invisible to characters.

Of course they are, but Fighter McSword doesn't need the PHB to know that It's usually easier to hit enemy robed man rather than his counterpart, Fighter McShield. Experience tells him that. They know game rules in NON-META TERMS!

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 06:33 PM
Game mechanics are invisible to characters.

Yes, but the results are visible. And they sure as hell don't know how things work in out-of-the-game world (that is, they're simply unaware of great warriors who died of a single strike - that simply has never happened in D&D). They just know how things work in their world. They may not know the actual die rolls, but they know the cause and the effect. And it gives them all the information they need.

Deepblue706
2008-09-15, 06:33 PM
the Fighter has never been shoehorned into being a defender. That is just *one* of the roles he can play. He can also play sniper and strike fairly competent with enough sourcebooks to use. The Defender is just nice to have sometimes.

Well, it's a bit of a dominant feature in 4E, anyway.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 06:34 PM
Well, it's a bit of a dominant feature in 4E, anyway.

Well yes, I'm somewhat disappointed with 4e to be honest.

Arbitrarity
2008-09-15, 06:39 PM
Well, it's a bit of a dominant feature in 4E, anyway.

Really, fighters can be deemed offensive in 4E as well. It's just that their abilities make it convenient for them to be "defenders" in metagame terms. Wizards may be controllers, that doesn't mean they "control" the battlefield, it may just mean they blow everything around them to shreds. "Leaders" don't have to lead, they can just hit people, expose enemy weaknesses, and distract foes.
My group has a fighter who takes every opening he gets to beat down opponents, whether its because they foolishly move after he focuses on them, or because they decide to leave themselves open attacking, without forcing him to defend. He uses the biggest weapon he can get, and so far has done more damage than our warlock or ranger (mostly because the ranger has rolled above 10 maybe twice)

Deepblue706
2008-09-15, 06:44 PM
Really, fighters can be deemed offensive in 4E as well. It's just that their abilities make it convenient for them to be "defenders" in metagame terms. Wizards may be controllers, that doesn't mean they "control" the battlefield, it may just mean they blow everything around them to shreds. "Leaders" don't have to lead, they can just hit people, expose enemy weaknesses, and distract foes.
My group has a fighter who takes every opening he gets to beat down opponents, whether its because they foolishly move after he focuses on them, or because they decide to leave themselves open attacking, without forcing him to defend. He uses the biggest weapon he can get, and so far has done more damage than our warlock or ranger (mostly because the ranger has rolled above 10 maybe twice)

Oh, I know Fighter can be offensive. But their focus is certainly on defense, now.

Arbitrarity
2008-09-15, 06:54 PM
Oh, I know Fighter can be offensive. But their focus is certainly on defense, now.

Metagame focus, perhaps. Class features are definitely fluffed defensively, which makes the role more likely to be defensive. Even then, though, what is this "focus" you speak of? Is it in class features, powers, fluff, feats?

Also, you can play a fighting character who is not a fighter, of course. I think of 4E ranger as the TWF fighter, and archer fighter, and fighter as the two handed weapon and sword and board guy.

Also, what makes a 3.5 fighter offensive?

Swordguy
2008-09-15, 07:14 PM
Also, what makes a 3.5 fighter offensive?

Their lack of power beside all the other non-monk core classes is pretty offensive...

Gavin Sage
2008-09-15, 07:22 PM
Also, what makes a 3.5 fighter offensive?

Full BAB bonus progression, full martial proficency, and easy access to fighting focused feats to raise that bonus higher along with say weapon specialization. Also give better access to special combat manuvers.

Note I'm not commenting on whether this actually works or not. Or that other classes (run its codzil....) can't do it better. I merely commenting on what I think the intent of the class was.

And on intent it seems clear to me that WotC made the Fighter first in 3e as building block class and thought the modularity would make up for the ablities they gave every other class outright. Which it might if the 'Fighter Feats' were of better quality on the whole or special combat manuvers a little more straighforward.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 07:34 PM
Or if you were allowed to change your bonus feats every day to fit your needs.

Weiser_Cain
2008-09-15, 07:34 PM
No, in-character, an experienced character knows the difference between "Ow, that'll leave a bruise later" and "Holy crap I'm gonna DIE!" and the sword and board guy usually falls into the former category.

If someone is personally tying up TWO Fighter-types, then he might be content to just spend his turns withdrawing and leading the 2 Fighters on a wild goose chase (cue Benny Hill music). Guess what, ONE of my team just tied up TWO of his team! Holy crud that's great. Now that they've committed 2 on me, my extra guy goes and wipes the floor with the face of mr wizard. When you are outnumbered, your job is to STALL for time as your allies wipe the floor with the other enemies and hope that your allies can come back and reinforce you in time.

The wizard may or may not have higher defenses. Either way he's still by far the most dangerous. Killing the wizard will still give me the biggest chances of survival so I'll take the bruise if I must.



Of course they are, but Fighter McSword doesn't need the PHB to know that It's usually easier to hit enemy robed man rather than his counterpart, Fighter McShield. Experience tells him that. They know game rules in NON-META TERMS!
Just because a wizard can (maybe) take you out in a round doesn't mean you ignore a fighter that can take you out in two. Assuming you have magic users on your side you're probably better off letting them handle that. Especially if this is higher level and that wizard can not be there in an instant. Now you wasted your turn and the fighter you left has helped kill the rogue or something.

Lapak
2008-09-15, 07:34 PM
A warrior is not someone who trains so that they can protect 3-4 other people who happen to be standing next to them, so that they can unleash the "real" attack. A warrior kills things. His method of "defense" is killing the other guy before he can do any harm to anyone else.This is why I moved to the 'squadrons' analogy earlier. Given that D&D uses HP to model injury and death, which is closer to modeling groups of warriors than modeling actual single combats, I find it more helpful to think about when looking at this kind of thing. Yeah, the way warriors eliminate threats is by killing the other guy. When you can't 'kill' the threat in one shot, though, the kind of fighter that the Fighter represents is the one that stands in the way of the enemy and slugs it out: heavy infantry. It'll get the job done eventually on its own, and it's the one thing you really can't do without, but using it as a strong point for your more specialized weapons to work around is more effective and takes advantage of it best.

Rogues are not warriors. Rogues are scoundrels who happen to get an ability called "sneak attack" that lets them exploit unaware opponents. Exploiting people when their back is turned is not a specialty, unless you're explicitly a trained assassin. Why a Fighter can't exploit such an opponent can only be justified by the Rogue being an assassin, or mere game balance. There is no reason for a warrior to lack precision.Except that the rogues are explicitly warriors in 3e and 4e. You may not agree with that decision, but they're mechanically modeled much more as 'assassins' or 'commandos' than 'thieves'. The fighter does benefit from distracted opponents, by the by; he bypasses their defenses more easily when he's flanking. But you're right - the kind of warrior that benefits most is no longer described by the Fighter. Because the game is using the other classes as examples of other kinds of trained combatants, just like it uses different classes for different kinds of spellcasters. You might just as well say that the Cleric invades the Wizard's niche because they both have spells.


Now, if the game only ever allowed Fighters, Rangers and Paladins ever act as competent warriors, that'd be boring for a lot of people. That's the only reason why they don't blow every other class out-of-the-water when it comes to combat. Clerics were made with intent to heal and have some combat ability - why do you think they got beefed-up in 3E? They were boring to, at least, someone.

I'm not saying it's wrong for other classes to have good combat ability, because in the end, everyone is playing a hero. However, I think it's pretty damn lame that the Fighter (along with other warrior classes), the guy who would - under normal circumstances - generally kick everyone's ass, is reduced to "Defender". That's all I was lamenting about. I feel that forcing a Fighter into this category is highly artificial. Does the Defending role come with the sense to wear armor and use a shield? Sure, a Fighter might decide this is what he does best, and ensures good income for him and his party - but that is not the purpose of a mundane warrior in a fantasy RPG. The purpose of one, such as the Fighter, is to let people play a bad-ass who is highly trained on how to use weapons to kill people. And, that's all it should ever be about.

While everyone should have the right to play a bad-ass character, despite his of her background, there should not have been any decision to make a Fighter a "Defender", solely because no other class concept fits the bill better. While I see the importance of guiding people who aren't sure of what class to take, tailoring most or all aspects of a class to fulfill one specific role is silly and restricting.I can't totally disagree with you, but the Fighter isn't strictly limited to defense even in 4e. You can get damage builds that compare favorably to Strikers, which have the added benefit of being useful in melee-range conflicts without combat advantage and with armor. It's a little annoying that the kill-the-other-guy warrior is best represented by a non-fighter class in 4e. But it's also strictly mechanics; if you want to play a warrior who specializes in killing his opponents, a Thug Rogue is where you're going to go mechanically but there's nothing stopping you from calling him a warrior or armoring him up as one, either. Sneak Attack isn't all about the back being turned. If they can knock someone over, distract them with a feint, attack with a buddy, or any number of other things they still get the benefit, and real warriors take advantage of all of these.

In 3.5, which was the original focus of the thread (I guess) there's nothing stopping you from making a Fighter as offensive as you want, and doing it successfully - high-damage fighter builds are on the top end of raw HP-damage delivery, and only the fact that high-end spellcasting makes them irrelevant is a problem.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 07:39 PM
Metagaming? The game world works in a given fashion. The characters don't live by the rules of our world. They live by the rules of the game world. In the game world, every swing is not a deadly threat to higher level characters! That's the whole point - the characters are not threatened by every attack and having fought a hundred fights, damn well know it. Why would they ever think every attack is a lethal threat if in this world, that's clearly not the case?

You still don't get it.

Every swing IS a deadly threat to a character regardless of level. It's not a deadly threat to the player because he understands game mechanics.

The high level character's Hit Points represent, in part, ability to avoid severe harm; 10 HP lost out of say, 120, represents a blow hitting armor solidly, or that requires great effort to dodge, doing no damage but depleting the character's reserves.

However, the character still has to expend reserves to dodge or mitigate it. If he didn't, that blow would have been much more severe. This is why coup de grace works. If you have a helpless target you can coup de grace them, doing massive HP damage and forcing a fortitude save thet their hitpoints don't help with? Why? Because they are affected by blows just as much; hitpoints represent ability to avoid blows; something they are deprived of when helpless.

The game world doesn't "work according to the rules" in the same sense that the real world follows the laws of physics. The game rules are an abstraction of what's actually happening. A character losing only 10 HP out of 120 isn't affected less by the blow than he was at first level; it represents a better ability to avoid the worst effects of it.

So yes, a character avoiding a fighter and sucking up hits because they "affect him less" is metagaming. He's embarking on a course of action that indicates he doesn't care if he gets hit, when hit points represent, in part, the fact that he does care if he gets hit, and his skill in avoiding the it.

Obviously things like pit fiends and dragons are exceptions. Different creatures have different properties, but their decisions should be made based on what would seem smart to them, not based on some metagame idea that "blows affect me less!" when hitpoints at high levels specifically represent an aility to do a better job of avoiding those effects!

Frosty
2008-09-15, 07:39 PM
Just because a wizard can (maybe) take you out in a round doesn't mean you ignore a fighter that can take you out in two. Assuming you have magic users on your side you're probably better off letting them handle that. Especially if this is higher level and that wizard can not be there in an instant. Now you wasted your turn and the fighter you left has helped kill the rogue or something.

Fighters that are not well built do not take you out in 2 rounds. And guess what? Moving away from the Fighter is one of the best things to do defensively! Wow, I can stand here and take his full attack, or I can move over there and threaten the caster...while denying the fighter his full-attack as well!

Gavin Sage
2008-09-15, 07:41 PM
Or if you were allowed to change your bonus feats every day to fit your needs.

Which sounds a lot like the various times fighters have been given magic, first in ToB and then in 4e. (Shush I know it can be fluffed as not magic, I care not much at all)

To which, with the feats now it wouldn't change terribly much and makes fighters really wonky to think about. You are super skilled with one weapon one day and then not the next? Better feats and a some fixes to the magic system (fix some spells, make standard casting time 1 round, more limited duration buffing) would go a long way to to redressing the imbalance between the classes.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 07:42 PM
You still don't get it.

Every swing IS a deadly threat to a character regardless of level. It's not a deadly threat to the player because he understands game mechanics.

The high level character's Hit Points represent, in part, ability to avoid severe harm; 10 HP lost out of say, 120, represents a blow hitting armor solidly, or that requires great effort to dodge, doing no damage but depleting the character's reserves.

However, the character still has to expend reserves to dodge or mitigate it. If he didn't, that blow would have been much more severe. This is why coup de grace works. If you have a helpless target you can coup de grace them, doing massive HP damage and forcing a fortitude save thet their hitpoints don't help with? Why? Because they are affected by blows just as much; hitpoints represent ability to avoid blows; something they are deprived of when helpless.

The game world doesn't "work according to the rules" in the same sense that the real world follows the laws of physics. The game rules are an abstraction of what's actually happening. A character losing only 10 HP out of 120 isn't affected less by the blow than he was at first level; it represents a better ability to avoid the worst effects of it.

So yes, a character avoiding a fighter and sucking up hits because they "affect him less" is metagaming. He's embarking on a course of action that indicates he doesn't care if he gets hit, when hit points represent, in part, the fact that he does care if he gets hit, and his skill in avoiding the it.

Obviously things like pit fiends and dragons are exceptions. Different creatures have different properties, but their decisions should be made based on what would seem smart to them, not based on some metagame idea that "blows affect me less!" when hitpoints at high levels specifically represent an aility to do a better job of avoiding those effects!

Umm it's more than I'm confident that I can dodge whatever the hell the other guy throws at me. If I'm a level 20 Fighter, I know I'm bad-ass enough that short of a Vorpal weapon, virtually no physical blow will drop me in a hit PRECISELY because I can dodge itand turn it into a glancing hit.

My character isn't non-chalant about getting run through. He's non-chalant about being swung at, because he knows he can avoid it.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 07:43 PM
Which sounds a lot like the various times fighters have been given magic, first in ToB and then in 4e. (Shush I know it can be fluffed as not magic, I care not much at all)

And I *love* the way ToB handled melee characters. Love it. It's what the fighter should've been.

Arbitrarity
2008-09-15, 07:46 PM
Fighters that are not well built do not take you out in 2 rounds. And guess what? Moving away from the Fighter is one of the best things to do defensively! Wow, I can stand here and take his full attack, or I can move over there and threaten the caster...while denying the fighter his full-attack as well!

Yeah. What's with the "sucking up hits" stuff I'm hearing here? Just because you're not attacking the person it is LEAST EFFECTIVE TO HIT (or so you probably think), and are moving away from him, does NOT make you flatfooted, or "ignoring" him. You're not ignoring him. You're avoiding his attacking you multiple times, you're dealing with a greater potential threat, as well as an easier target, and seriously, claiming that HP in D&D wholly represents damage avoidance has some issues as well. A critical hit with a greataxe by a trained user, on a flatfooted high level fighter, doesn't kill, nor incapacitate, nor appreciably harm the capabilities of, that fighter. A "Lucky hit" on a character who is totally unaware of you until he gets hit, cleaving normal people in two... somehow doesn't kill him, if he is naked, and does not react.:smallconfused: I'd say that qualifies for "I can take that hit".

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 07:55 PM
Diamondeye: Let's keep the "don't get it"-stuff out of here, please. If the character isn't helpless, he knows that he has 100% chance to take a hit and survive. He knows this since he's fought. He knows this since he knows his skill level. He knows this since he knows his ability. It's the very core of his skill. How can you call it metagaming for a character to know what he's capable of? If there literally is no chance of failure, how can it be metagaming? How could the character not know what he can do? How is it possible? He doesn't need to know the HP mechanic. He doesn't need to know the possible results of the die roll. All he needs to know is that no matter who or what hits him, he can ignore the bulk of the attack and easily take a hit or two without so much as a shrug. How is it metagaming for the character to be aware of his own ability? What kind of a fighter doesn't know what he can't and can do in D&D or in real world? Not one who's got experience, that's for sure. Warriors know exactly what they can do and that's what enables them to assess the sitiuation and act accordingly.

He's embarking on a road of action that will in the bigger picture give him the best chance of survival. It doesn't take the Int/Wis of a universal genius to pull that off. It's friggin' common sense. Take out the biggest threat with the worst defenses first while evading the other foes (since you know they can't kill you in one shot like the biggest threat can - no over level 6 character can truly claim to have never seen a caster save for very low magic world) who pose less threat and have stronger defenses. Something like an Ogre or a Hill Giant may fail to pull that off due to the low Int. Note, may. As long as they pose the information that the casters are capable of killing them within seconds (for example from having seen other casters, adepts or so on), they know they should kill those first. That isn't an action that requires over animal Int. The part that isn't given is the knowledge of casters' potency and if one of the opponents is a caster, but that knowledge isn't certainly out of their reach and if they do happen to pose the knowledge, they'll obviously act accordingly ('cause y'know...survival instinct).

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 08:11 PM
Diamondeye: Let's keep the "don't get it"-stuff out of here, please. If the character isn't helpless, he knows that he has 100% chance to take a hit and survive. He knows this since he's fought. He knows this since he knows his skill level. He knows this since he knows his ability. It's the very core of his skill. How can you call it metagaming for a character to know what he's capable of?

It's metagaming because the character is not capable of taking the hit and surviving, nor does he "know that". Hit points do not primarily represent ability to absorb physical punishment.


If there literally is no chance of failure, how can it be metagaming?

The only reason there's no chance of failure is that this fight is one that's being adjudicated under the combat rules. Those don't represent the way the world works; they represent the fact that PCs are involved and that combat is heroic for player entertainment


How could the character not know what he can do? How is it possible? He doesn't need to know the HP mechanic. He doesn't need to know the possible results of the die roll. All he needs to know is that no matter who or what hits him, he can ignore the bulk of the attack and easily take a hit or two without so much as a shrug.

He CAN"T just take the bulk of a hit and shrug. If that were true, Coup De Grace wouldn't work. The only reason it will happen in this particular combat is that it's against the PCs. The rules are their for the benefit of their entertainment, not to simulate how combat always works. If he were fighting another NPC he could very easily die in a single hit by DM Fiat.


How is it metagaming for the character to be aware of his own ability? What kind of a fighter doesn't know what he can't and can do in D&D or in real world? Not one who's got experience, that's for sure. Warriors know exactly what they can do and that's what enables them to assess the sitiuation and act accordingly.

You're begging the question. I don't have to show that he doesn't know what he's capable of ecaus ehe's not capable of it. He's only "capable of it" in a fight agains the PCs because we adjudicate those with combat rules.


He's embarking on a road of action that will in the bigger picture give him the best chance of survival. It doesn't take the Int/Wis of a universal genius to pull that off. It's friggin' common sense.

No, he isn't. He's making a wild-ass assumption that he has no reason to make if he doesn't have metagame knowledge, or the PCs conveniently conform to an easily-identified stereotype.


Take out the biggest threat with the worst defenses first while evading the other foes (since you know they can't kill you in one shot like the biggest threat can - no over level 6 character can truly claim to have never seen a caster save for very low magic world) who pose less threat and have stronger defenses.

He doesn't necesarily know what the biggest threat is, 6th level or not. You're just pulling a number out of the air and arbitrarily assigning a level of knowledge to it. He also does not know that the fighter can't kill him in one hit because he does not know these are PCs. As far as he is concerned that sword is a deadly weapon.


Something like an Ogre or a Hill Giant may fail to pull that off due to the low Int. Note, may. As long as they pose the information that the casters are capable of killing them within seconds (for example from having seen other casters, adepts or so on), they know they should kill those first. That isn't an action that requires over animal Int. The part that isn't given is the knowledge of casters' potency and if one of the opponents is a caster, but that knowledge isn't certainly out of their reach and if they do happen to pose the knowledge, they'll obviously act accordingly ('cause y'know...survival instinct).

No, no, no. Casters do not run around conveniently marked. Monsters are not aware they have hit points; in fact, they only really have hit points when they fight the PCs; at any other time they live or die at DM discretion.

A Wizard is not always a guy in robes. He could be the elf in the chain shirt, or even the human in mithril full plate. (Spellsword)

A guy in armor is not always a fighter. He might be a warblade or swordsage.

Too many assumptions. Sorry, but you can't just assume the monster knows who is who in an adventuring party and what they're capabilities are. That's creating a best-case scenario for the monster and then assuming it's the norm.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 08:16 PM
Umm it's more than I'm confident that I can dodge whatever the hell the other guy throws at me. If I'm a level 20 Fighter, I know I'm bad-ass enough that short of a Vorpal weapon, virtually no physical blow will drop me in a hit PRECISELY because I can dodge itand turn it into a glancing hit.

First of all, assuming level 20 is rather bad form, since that's ahrdly the norm for play.

Second, there are several ways, mainly martial maneuvers, to drop a level 20 fighter in one hit, or at least put him in danger of being killed very soon after.


My character isn't non-chalant about getting run through. He's non-chalant about being swung at, because he knows he can avoid it.

He doesn't know that. If he takes a Mountain Tombstone Strike, or any number of other level-appropriate martial maneuvers, or even a power-attack critical, he will suffer a very severe depletion of his reserves.

Arbitrarity
2008-09-15, 08:22 PM
I still don't get it, Diamondeye. You say that the character is metagaming to not attack the fighter. You say that by doing so, he leaves himself in mortal danger. But that has nothing to do with any class feature or ability of any fighter I've ever seen. What fighter in 3.5 gets the ability to wipe out enemies who don't attack them, but can't do anything to enemies fighting them?
Because as a rogue or fighter, or giant, I'm not going to pound on a target that will just kill me quickly. I'm going to run, or try fight something else, or avoid that character as best as possible. Or, if I find they can't kill me instantaneously, then I can safely avoid and mitigate their hits.

Essentially, what you seem to be saying is... "Ignoring the fighter means he kills you. That means you wouldn't do it."
I'm wondering what about ignoring not attacking the fighter makes him kill you, as opposed to attacking him. Does he have Combat Challenge? No. Does he have Divine Challenge? No.
So how is he making it more deadly to attack someone other than him?

Starsinger
2008-09-15, 08:31 PM
the original focus of the thread (I guess)

Well my specific question entailed why the DMG recommends the standard party: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue.

According to the nebulous them, the Cleric (alternatively druid, and sometimes bard) is there to cast Cure Light Wounds, turn undead, and look pretty. The Wizard (alternatively Sorcerer) is there to cast Fireball, have knowledge, and cast the occasional buff spell, and the Rogue (Or Bard) is there to handle all the party's non-Knowledge related skill needs.

My question was, what exact purpose does the Fighter (or Ranger or Paladin) serve in this "You should have this" ideology.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 08:32 PM
*snip*

So fights other than the encounters with PCs don't use the same rules in this world? How the heck is such a world supposed to be playable if the rules are not even internally consistent?

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 08:35 PM
I still don't get it, Diamondeye. You say that the character is metagaming to not attack the fighter.

No, I've said that it's metagaming if the character avoids the fighter to attack the wizard without an in-character reason to do so. That may very well exist in some cases, but


You say that by doing so, he leaves himself in mortal danger. But that has nothing to do with any class feature or ability of any fighter I've ever seen.

The fact that he's got a sword in his hand. The attacker doesn't know he's a fighter. He knows he's a guy with a sword, and swords can kill you. He doesn't know anything about "class abilities" or "features". He may be aware that some people with swords can use them to produce near-magical effects (martial maneuvers) or do strike truly terrible blows (power attack/critical) and this guy may or may not have that capability.


What fighter in 3.5 gets the ability to wipe out enemies who don't attack them, but can't do anything to enemies fighting them?

What's this got to do with it?


Because as a rogue or fighter, or giant, I'm not going to pound on a target that will just kill me quickly. I'm going to run, or try fight something else, or avoid that character as best as possible. Or, if I find they can't kill me instantaneously, then I can safely avoid and mitigate their hits.

Again, not relevant. No one has argued that fighters get easy kills when behind an opponent; the opponent may or may not still be outmatched face to face


Essentially, what you seem to be saying is... "Ignoring the fighter means he kills you. That means you wouldn't do it."

No, I'm saying from the perception of a person fighting someone with a sword, trying to bypass that person means he is likely to hit you in the back with it. That's likely to kill you. The character doesn't know he has hitpoints or will survive no matter what; as far as he's concerned the fighter is a real danger. It may or may not be worth the risk of bypassing him. However, if the DM has him act based on the DMs knowledge of hitpoints and such, it's metagaming in an adversarial fashion.


I'm wondering what about ignoring not attacking the fighter makes him kill you, as opposed to attacking him. Does he have Combat Challenge? No. Does he have Divine Challenge? No.

I'm wondering whose arguments you're reading because they clearly aren't mine.


So how is he making it more deadly to attack someone other than him?

It doesn't matter how deadly it is purely in terms of game mechanics; they're just an abstraction. What matters is how the attacker percieves things. He percieves an armored guy with a sword that he's fighting. He percieves another guy behind that guy who he also wants to attack. Going around the guy with the sword means allowing him to attack unmolested.

Allowing him to accept that risk on the basis of game mechanics is metagaming. Allowing him to accept that risk based on something obvious within the game world (like, "I'm a dragon! No puny mortal can really strike me a dangerous blow!") is not metagaming.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-15, 08:40 PM
I guess you missed my response to that response. When you turn your back on the sword-and-board guy, he stabs you. You die. You do not come back, because there's no way your buddies can afford it (nor do they really care).

But you failed to explain how I would'nt die if I faced him...
See I look ity this way:
If I facve him I die then facing him is stupid.
I face the others. If I still die I still did something before I died.
This equation never reaches a point where fighting the Fighter will help.

Unless, the you turn back snd he stabs you and you die is the Fighter is actually a Rogue (2nd Edition Backstab). But then he isn't a Fighter! So you lost that premise.

Diamondeye
2008-09-15, 08:42 PM
So fights other than the encounters with PCs don't use the same rules in this world? How the heck is such a world supposed to be playable if the rules are not even internally consistent?

The world is internally consistent.

Remember, the rules exist to make the game playable. What happens outside the part the PCs interact with doesn't need the rules.

The game world doesn't "know" the PCs exist. It essentially "just so happens" that in fights they are involved in, especially as they get more powerful, that people will rarely die from a single, traumatic weapon hit. It's not that it can't happen in the sense of the laws of physics of the world; it's just that it won't happen in the small sampling of all the combats around the world that this particular group of people happens to be involved in.

They're a statistical anomoly. That anomoly exist for the player's entertainment. The game world doesn't have to go by these rules all the time because they only model the activities of the game group.

Seriously, have you ever seen someone run a combat just between NPCs? I haven't. DMs decide what happened all the time.

Eldariel
2008-09-15, 08:57 PM
The world is internally consistent.

Remember, the rules exist to make the game playable. What happens outside the part the PCs interact with doesn't need the rules.

The game world doesn't "know" the PCs exist. It essentially "just so happens" that in fights they are involved in, especially as they get more powerful, that people will rarely die from a single, traumatic weapon hit. It's not that it can't happen in the sense of the laws of physics of the world; it's just that it won't happen in the small sampling of all the combats around the world that this particular group of people happens to be involved in.

They're a statistical anomoly. That anomoly exist for the player's entertainment. The game world doesn't have to go by these rules all the time because they only model the activities of the game group.

Seriously, have you ever seen someone run a combat just between NPCs? I haven't. DMs decide what happened all the time.

The question is, where are you getting this from? Why are the PC rules different from the other fights? You seem to pretty much go with "they're a special case"-ruling which is all fine and good, but not universal by any means. That would also explain why you're disagreeing with just about everyone. Whenever I DM, the rules the game is played by apply to the whole world. That means that the HP system exists for the whole world. That also means fights with PCs don't bend the laws of the world - two NPCs fighting would involve the exactly same rules as two PCs fighting.

If I wanted more gritty fantasy with more character death and such, I'd write HP off and go with a hit spot-based system making every hit potentially lethal. Then same would apply to high level NPCs duking it out too. However, since I play heroic fantasy and use the HP system, it applies to the whole world. A bear fighting with a wolfpack would work off HP just as much as the party facing off with a Dragon. Sure, I'm not gonna actually play or roll out the bear vs. wolf-pack fight (unless it has relevance to the story), but the relevant part is that the combatants followed the same rules as everyone else. Therefore, all the combat that happens "off camera" follows the same rules and thus all the beings of the world know those rules since those are the rules of the world.

Point being, whenever I play, the world has uniform rules. Everyone goes by the same rules save possibly for action points (which are specifically defined as a heroic trait - HP is not). My definition of internally consistent is just that - the same rules apply to all sitiuations and all beings in the world. I'm fine with you disagreeing with that, but that doesn't change anything.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 09:00 PM
*I* run small combats between NPCs occasionally. They're mostly short, and help further character development for oneof my PCs who is a teacher of sort.

THe point is, in my world, creatures have certain prejudices due to how most of the world is. they will act on those prejudices until threat assessment shows otherwise. Until that Warblade lands a Tombstone strike and proves himself a threat, the monster will likely go for the easier and juicier target first.

Default AI for intelligent monsters in my world = kill in ascending order of armor because it is what allows monsters to survive the most. Survival of the fittest here. The monsters that DON'T do that in general get wiped out and don't reproduce. They will adjust as they see the capabilities of the party. Sometimes the enemy will also scry on the party first and have an ok idea of what the party is capable of.

My monsters have IC/non-meta rules knowledge when appropriate, and my world is BETTER for it.

Weiser_Cain
2008-09-15, 09:27 PM
Well if you want to talk worlds my Wizards wear pants. Among other things there isn't a reliable non magical way to tell who the arcane threat is just who's wearing the most obvious armor. And running at a (more obvious) wizard is like charging a cannon. Overpowering melee machines exist in my setting however so you need specialists for those situations.

Back to dnd land, if you can run encounters without fighters that's fine but they've really worked for me and mine.

Matthew
2008-09-15, 09:32 PM
The question is, where are you getting this from?

From the sidebar in the 3.5 DMG that says as much, probably (p. 136). Running the game as though the abstract rules are the physics of the imagined universe is not the default expectation of the DMG (though one could just as well argue that it actually is, since the DMG has something of an identity crisis as to whether the rules inform the imagined world or vice versa).

Arakune
2008-09-15, 09:39 PM
The bandits example:

You sneak past the sword-board guy and kill the caster and then the sword guy kills you.

Why it have to be this way? Are the bandits that dumb?

If the SB guy focus on you, he turn his back to your buddy and he kills him. If he ignore you and keep fighting your buddy, he is killed by you.

If he land a hit, you may be severely injured but hardly outright dead. But guess what, you knew that was going to happen, so no real problem here. If you get killed in a single blow, then you did a serious miss in the calculation and you simply deserved to die.

If that's so difficult to gasp, think about him landing inside the formation and killed the more easy target, and if they turn their backs to hit you, them your buddy poke him from behind. Risky, but doable.

Oh, and for the kind words from before:

It's a good point because it's relevant.

Yahzi
2008-09-15, 11:05 PM
All adventuring parties they ever encountered had a wizard in them?
All the dangerous ones.

If you want to play your NPCs as stupid, that's fine. Heck, given the intelligence level of some playing groups, it might even be fair. :smallbiggrin:

What I do is make INT and WIS rolls for the monsters. In fact, just last weekend the party got ambushed. When the Black Knight and his squad came barreling out of the barn to ride them down, the first thing they asked was,

"Does the field have any crops in it?"

Silly me - I had forgotten their blasted Entangle. So I said, "Let's see if the Black Knight knows about your single favorite trick that won you a huge battle against goblins that everybody saw. Local Area knowledge check - DC 15."

Well, the idiot wasn't from the local area, and he had an INT of 10, and like all my NPCs he couldn't roll dice worth *&@!, so no, the Black Knight did not realize that charging through a wheat field = instant death.

(On the other hand, the very next battle the players cast so many Entangles the gnolls had to retreat. They couldn't stand watching their experience points run away, so they charged into their own Entangle. And spent the rest of the encounter just like the gnolls - trying to get out. :smallbiggrin:)

Frosty
2008-09-15, 11:46 PM
Umm, making the enemy run away grants them exp as well. The same as if they had defeated the gnolls.

Sholos
2008-09-15, 11:48 PM
The bandits example:

You sneak past the sword-board guy and kill the caster and then the sword guy kills you.

Why it have to be this way? Are the bandits that dumb?

If the SB guy focus on you, he turn his back to your buddy and he kills him. If he ignore you and keep fighting your buddy, he is killed by you.

If he land a hit, you may be severely injured but hardly outright dead. But guess what, you knew that was going to happen, so no real problem here. If you get killed in a single blow, then you did a serious miss in the calculation and you simply deserved to die.

If that's so difficult to gasp, think about him landing inside the formation and killed the more easy target, and if they turn their backs to hit you, them your buddy poke him from behind. Risky, but doable.

And how do your buddies get past their respective targets in order to assist you? Remember, one is fighting each other melee guy. There's only four of you.

Frosty
2008-09-15, 11:54 PM
A Crusader can probably do pretty well. He's got boosts and Strikes that take away the enemy's ability to use AoOs. I love Crusaders.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-16, 12:00 AM
And how do your buddies get past their respective targets in order to assist you? Remember, one is fighting each other melee guy. There's only four of you.

If the other two guys are smart, they'll Tumble (or 5-step) to flank one of the Leather Armor guys and try to take him out too. That way the other sword-slingers can either try to protect the guy in robes or the guy in leather. Concentrating your force like that is always a good idea.

Or, if they can Tumble well, we can get a nice double-flank on the robe guy and take him out for sure.

Frosty
2008-09-16, 12:09 AM
The tumble skill exists for a reason. If now's not a good time to use it, then I don't know when is.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-16, 12:17 AM
The tumble skill exists for a reason. If now's not a good time to use it, then I don't know when is.

Is there ever a bad time to tumble, really? :smalltongue:

Seriously though, tumbling just made fighters even less sticky. Now anyone in light armor worth their salt has flawless tumble at 4th level because, well, it's really nice to run around without ever worrying about AoOs. Heck, my Fighter-Rogue saved two feats by not bothering to get mobility for that very reason!

The real fun starts at level 13 when you can do flawless full-speed tumbles and tumble through people. :smalltongue:

Or, if you can't wait, DEX 18 + 5 Ranks in Balance & Jump + Skill Focus + Acrobatics = +13... so level 9. Nice! :smallbiggrin:

Deepblue706
2008-09-16, 12:44 AM
This is why I moved to the 'squadrons' analogy earlier. Given that D&D uses HP to model injury and death, which is closer to modeling groups of warriors than modeling actual single combats, I find it more helpful to think about when looking at this kind of thing. Yeah, the way warriors eliminate threats is by killing the other guy. When you can't 'kill' the threat in one shot, though, the kind of fighter that the Fighter represents is the one that stands in the way of the enemy and slugs it out: heavy infantry. It'll get the job done eventually on its own, and it's the one thing you really can't do without, but using it as a strong point for your more specialized weapons to work around is more effective and takes advantage of it best.

The beef I have with the squadron analogy is that it kind of gets us thinking about classes as different types of generic soldiers, which I think is a flawed comparison, because we're talking about heroic archetypes. D&D is a team game and does rely on different people doing different jobs, but I think the Fighter shouldn't have to rely on a "specialist". I think he should be the specialist.



Except that the rogues are explicitly warriors in 3e and 4e. You may not agree with that decision, but they're mechanically modeled much more as 'assassins' or 'commandos' than 'thieves'. The fighter does benefit from distracted opponents, by the by; he bypasses their defenses more easily when he's flanking. But you're right - the kind of warrior that benefits most is no longer described by the Fighter. Because the game is using the other classes as examples of other kinds of trained combatants, just like it uses different classes for different kinds of spellcasters. You might just as well say that the Cleric invades the Wizard's niche because they both have spells.

And, I don't think it's right to disallow one class to make good use of an ability because of an unnecessary split. It really doesn't need so many types of combatants (as for 4E, I don't see the point of having both the Rogue and Ranger, etc). And, I do think the game could do with fewer spellcasting types. I'm actually in favor of a unified magic system.



I can't totally disagree with you, but the Fighter isn't strictly limited to defense even in 4e. You can get damage builds that compare favorably to Strikers, which have the added benefit of being useful in melee-range conflicts without combat advantage and with armor. It's a little annoying that the kill-the-other-guy warrior is best represented by a non-fighter class in 4e. But it's also strictly mechanics; if you want to play a warrior who specializes in killing his opponents, a Thug Rogue is where you're going to go mechanically but there's nothing stopping you from calling him a warrior or armoring him up as one, either. Sneak Attack isn't all about the back being turned. If they can knock someone over, distract them with a feint, attack with a buddy, or any number of other things they still get the benefit, and real warriors take advantage of all of these.

No, he's not strictly limited to defense. But the class features that make him unique (ie Mark) is based on defense. And, I happen to have a disliking for using a different class to "do the right job", because I find they just lack in a different department that the one I had instinctively been drawn to actually strived in.



In 3.5, which was the original focus of the thread (I guess) there's nothing stopping you from making a Fighter as offensive as you want, and doing it successfully - high-damage fighter builds are on the top end of raw HP-damage delivery, and only the fact that high-end spellcasting makes them irrelevant is a problem.

Yeah, spellcasting makes chumps out of Fighters. But, I do enjoy the extensive modularity of the 3.5 Fighter, something that seems to be lacking in 4E.

...

Basically, I'm complaining that D&D isn't enough like GURPS.

horseboy
2008-09-16, 01:58 AM
I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't be so eager to turn your back on a guy with a sword 5 feet away from you in order to attack a real machinegunner, if you knew the guy with the sword would try to stick you with it.Well, given that this would be a sword made out of Nerf, to help simulate a 3.x fighter, yes, yes I would ignore him since he can't actually hurt me.
Again, first rule of the streets, geek the mage.
That's assuming you know that the target is a high-value target. Wizards don't walk around with a sign saying "Wizard" on them; they don't even all wear robes. What if the party wizard is an Eldritch knight in a mithril chain shirt with a greatsword; they know he's a wizard how exactly?
Because he's speaking in Draconic and wiggling his fingers around and he smells like guano. Remember, in the "real world" analogy, it's not "I go, you go" he's rattling off a spell even as I target him.

Much as I agree that 2e was better (not as good as 1e, of course), the 6th level character is free to think "He'll never land a good shot on me; I'm bloody brilliant!" because s/he is 6th level and knows how many combats they've survived.

Look at the final fight in Hellboy II: in AD&D terms they're both "hitting" almost every attack, but the only wound is a small scratch on HB's cheek. They're losing HP, but they're not getting killed because their skill and experience is turning blows that would kill into near-misses. In combat against a normal person, either character would be supremely confident of coming out without any wounds. That's how high level fighters should work, IMO.Awh crap, can't remember his name, I used to work with a 'Nam vet. His DI received a congressional medal of honour in WWII and the Iron Cross in WWI. Those with mighty Google-fu and too much time could probably find him. In one fight he was shot 18 times and had his throat slit. He single handedly killed 38 enemy soldiers, the last three with barbed wire.

That's a high level fighter.
However, outside that style is where getting run through generally means death, or at least sever impairment, and is something that characters actively try to avoid.You play Rolemaster too?
Their lack of power beside all the other non-monk core classes is pretty offensive...Winner!
My question was, what exact purpose does the Fighter (or Ranger or Paladin) serve in this "You should have this" ideology.Don't know, the only reason there was a fighter in our group was I wanted to play trip monkey. You're much better off with a mage and three clerics.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-16, 02:05 AM
Don't know, the only reason there was a fighter in our group was I wanted to play trip monkey. You're much better off with a mage and three clerics.

Woah woah woah.

Everyone knows that the Druids are better substitutes for Fighters at low levels than clerics! They can get Wolves, which are essentially superior Trip Fighters, as a class feature.

Clearly you meant a wizard, a cleric, and two druids. Or a druid and a beguiler :smalltongue:

I am amused that a 1st level druid has a class feature which handily substitutes for an entire 1st level Fighter :smallbiggrin:

horseboy
2008-09-16, 02:36 AM
Woah woah woah.

Everyone knows that the Druids are better substitutes for Fighters at low levels than clerics! They can get Wolves, which are essentially superior Trip Fighters, as a class feature.

Clearly you meant a wizard, a cleric, and two druids. Or a druid and a beguiler :smalltongue:

I am amused that a 1st level druid has a class feature which handily substitutes for an entire 1st level Fighter :smallbiggrin:Well, I did use a druid in that Isle of Dread remake thing, only I went with a constrictor. Though for RPGA stuff it was Moose: Ranger of the Gnarly and a Mystic Theurge of Wejaas. Nukem: Barbarian/Dread Commando and a Cleric of Flloraagh (travel, however you spell it) Matt "the Bloody": Usually running different table, when he got to play cleric of St. Cuthbert Big 'Un: Gnome Ragemage and a crap can't remember. Big 'un and Moose loved taking crappy classes and breaking DM's spirits (and modules) with them. One of these days I'll have to grab their character sheets and post them.

nagora
2008-09-16, 04:39 AM
Hercules, Beowulf, Little John, Siegfried, Sinbad? Sure, maybe they're good examples of Fighters. But they're not much like stereotypical D&D Fighters.
They are to me.


I don't think any of them was exactly a specialist in heavy armor.
What has that to do with it?

And except for Little John, they tended to be solo adventurers, which are kind of the opposite of "Defenders" or guardians.
Which was (part of) the point of this thread: to discuss whether "defender" should be a combat role which fighters have to fulfil. I said no, because that is so limited (and dull) as to rule out exactly the sorts of characters we know as fighters from the Fighter class, as you point out.


So I think the Fighter class in D&D really does need some more definition. Should the stereotype of heavy armor really be dropped from the idea of a Fighter character?
Fighters are a much broader concept than that; I think heavy armour as a defining characteristic should probably be part of a knightly sub-class.


Should they be considered Defenders, or are they really more of Strikers?
They're Fighters. If defending is the right tactic for the situation, then they defend; if striking is then they strike etc.


Which characters from myth or history are we going to hold up as the epitome of Fighter-dom?
Conan; John Carter; D'Artagnan; Sinbad; Perseus; Ajax; Achilles (Achilies is a particularly good example, IMO, of a high level 1e fighter); and Sir William Marshall spring to mind.


His DI received a congressional medal of honour in WWII and the Iron Cross in WWI.
That's quite an unusual combination! Did he emigrate between the wars or is there some even more bizarre tale behind it?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-16, 05:04 AM
ConanBarbarian
D'Artagnan Swashbuckler or Swordsage or Duelist
Sinbad Factotem
Perseus Crusader
Ajax Warblade
Achilles Warblade.

I see no need for any of them to be Fighters. It's a class that does nothing well, and I don't think 4e made it any better.

Fan
2008-09-16, 05:09 AM
4the ed made nothing better, and everything worse.

Also The fighter doesn't really HAVE a purpose anymore with ToB The book of nine sowrds out.

nagora
2008-09-16, 05:41 AM
Barbarian
Maybe; Howard's originals are more Fighter than Barbarian.

Swashbuckler or Swordsage or Duelist
If you have a decent Swashbuckler class, sure. I've never seen one that did the archetype particularly well, and a player with a fighter can do it for themselves.


Factotem
Meaningless class, and munchkin crap to boot.


Crusader
Why? Seems a bit of a stretch for any of the classic Greek heroes.


Warblade
Meaningless class.


I see no need for any of them to be Fighters. It's a class that does nothing well, and I don't think 4e made it any better.
Sure. But I think we've established that 3e's design is junk. The question really is shouldn't there be a class which covers these sorts of character in the way that 1e had? In particular, should there not be such a class instead of dividing it down into lots of super-specialised classes with meaningless - or misleading, as in the case of "Crusader" - names which don't actually represent any clear type of character?

If you're going to have classes, then I think it is desirable to have no more than about half a dozen in use in any campaign. Beyond that and, really, you should be using a totally skill/profession based system.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-16, 05:54 AM
Several problems.

See, I prefer to have classes that improve my concept. If I want to play a character who uses the environment to attack from odd angles and always have elevation, I want a class or at least feats that reflect that. If i don't have mechanics behind it, then all it is is me describing cool stuff I do while my friends wait for their turn. I want mechanics to be able to be used to represent fluff, because the characters are seeing and doing this. If there is no tactical advantage to leaping off of a staircase, why bother?

How are Warblades 'meaningless'? They have the same fluff as Fighters, and much better mechanics. Further, how is the Factotem munchkin? They're a class that uses Intelligence to substitute for Strength and Dexterity. They give Rogues options in combat, which can only be a good thing.

Perseus is a Crusader because all that he did was accomplished with advice and aid from the Gods themselves. It's not a perfect fit, but I just pulled an all-nighter, so gimme a break.

nagora
2008-09-16, 06:45 AM
then all it is is me describing cool stuff I do while my friends wait for their turn.
What on earth is wrong with that?


How are Warblades 'meaningless'? They have the same fluff as Fighters, and much better mechanics.
Meaningless in the sense that the name conveys exactly zero about what the class represents.

Further, how is the Factotem munchkin? They're a class that uses Intelligence to substitute for Strength and Dexterity.
I don't know how to answer that; Factotem is just a joke IMO. It's like a parody of bad play that someone took seriously.


They give Rogues options in combat, which can only be a good thing.
Anything that gives rogues options in combat that aren't hide, run, or sneak is a bad thing.


Perseus is a Crusader because all that he did was accomplished with advice and aid from the Gods themselves. It's not a perfect fit, but I just pulled an all-nighter, so gimme a break.
I think that's a bit weak but I'll let you off. I think that's much more of a setting characteristic than something special to Perseus or even any one class in a Greek Myth setting. The gods pop up advising everyone and their local butcher.

Knaight
2008-09-16, 07:38 AM
Prometheus in particular advises the local butcher, what with the whole tricking the gods by letting them choose the sacrifice thing.

Arakune
2008-09-16, 08:18 AM
And how do your buddies get past their respective targets in order to assist you? Remember, one is fighting each other melee guy. There's only four of you.

By ATTACKING them? That's enough assist, unless they are going to let them get me gang banged by the n-1 meele guys and they stand watching!

Let's see:

N travelers, where 1 is robes guy and N-1 is meele guys.

N bandits, where 1 is the guy that will kill the robe guy.

After the robes guy is killed, N-1vsN-1.

If someone from the travelers part try to attack me, the others bandits attack him, and having armor or not, turning his back to someone is not good to health. Next turn, the bandit in the middle either finds an opening and scape or stab the one who turned his back to him.

Lapak
2008-09-16, 08:20 AM
Yeah, spellcasting makes chumps out of Fighters. But, I do enjoy the extensive modularity of the 3.5 Fighter, something that seems to be lacking in 4E.

...

Basically, I'm complaining that D&D isn't enough like GURPS.It kind of felt like that's where you were going, because any class system is going to lock each class into an expected role (even if it is broken in a way that means one class CAN perform several roles.) You think the fighter's role should be more aggressive, and another person might think it SHOULD be defensive, but in no case will both of you be happy. And I sympathize. I'm running a 4e campaign now, and playing in a 3.0 campaign, and in a Tri-Stat (Buffy the Vampire Slayer variant) game, and I've been thinking it would be fun to play a more modular and more combat-lethal system again.

Thane of Fife
2008-09-16, 09:31 AM
Anything that gives rogues options in combat that aren't hide, run, or sneak is a bad thing.


I don't know about that - I would argue that the Grey Mouser probably epitomizes the Rogue archetype (to me, anyway), and he's certainly quite the capable swordsman.

Diamondeye
2008-09-16, 10:41 AM
Well, given that this would be a sword made out of Nerf, to help simulate a 3.x fighter, yes, yes I would ignore him since he can't actually hurt me.

Um, yes, he CAN actually hurt you. This is rapidly approaching circular argument. "The fighter can't hurt you because fighter attacks are ineffective. We know they are ineffective because they can't actually hurt you!"

Aside from the fact that power attack and criticals most certainly CAN do very significant damage, especially with iterative attacks, the fighter can take martial study feats and get access to up to 3 martial maneuvers.

Furthermore, assuming that the fighter is a fighter is giving metagame knowledge to the attacker in and of itself, unless the attacker is familiar with the person or has conducted a very thourough reconaissance through magic or something. A Warblade or Crusader doesn't look any different from a fighter.


Again, first rule of the streets, geek the mage.

This isn't Shadowrun. There's these things called clerics and druids; less easily "geeked" you know.


Because he's speaking in Draconic and wiggling his fingers around and he smells like guano. Remember, in the "real world" analogy, it's not "I go, you go" he's rattling off a spell even as I target him.

Is he? What if no one is doing that until you're fully engaged, then the elf in the mithril breastplate turns out to be the one wiggling his fingers?

Suppose that guy with the staff and the robes, speaking a funny language turns out to be a druid. Oops.. "geek the mage first" just became "fight a bear/dire lion/fire elemental in hand-to-hand combat".

If every antagonist the party come up against is making their decisions based on what the party's capabilities are, the DM is blatantly metagaming, unless the party is wearing a sign on everyone's back announcing their profession. Sure, some attackers will have that knowledge, but others should not. If the attackers are going after the guy in robes because "he's a wizard", then that may be justified if they're the sort to make snap assumptions, because assuming the guy in robes (if anyone in robes is present at all) is a wizard is just that - a snap assumption.

Diamondeye
2008-09-16, 10:58 AM
The question is, where are you getting this from? Why are the PC rules different from the other fights? You seem to pretty much go with "they're a special case"-ruling which is all fine and good, but not universal by any means. That would also explain why you're disagreeing with just about everyone.

A) I'm not disagreeing with "just about everyone", just the few people who got into this thread.

B) Yes, it is a special case, because combat rules have a dual purpose. They reflect what happens in those fights the PCs participate in. The game world doesn't "know" that there's anything different about these fights; they just so happen to form a statistical anomoly of all fights in the world.

Tis is because D&D uses an abstract HP system for the advantages it provides to a heroic playstyle. You really could play with a Shadowrun-style system too, and then the party would represe


Whenever I DM, the rules the game is played by apply to the whole world.

How many fights that the PCs are not involved in have you actually played out?


That means that the HP system exists for the whole world. That also means fights with PCs don't bend the laws of the world - two NPCs fighting would involve the exactly same rules as two PCs fighting.

So that's how you do it. That's the thing: adherence to this idea that the game rules are like laws of physics that the world must adhere to in order to be consistent creates the problem of fighters and aggro mechanics, and gives us this unrealistic situation of people not being afraid of being hit with weapons.

If you want to play that way, that's fine. However, it clearly reveals that the problem of "fighters don't have an aggro creator" is not a problem of the fighter, it's of assuming that abstractions of combat systems are supposed to model what always happens in every combat, PCs or not. It's also a problem of allowing the monsters to act on DM-level knowledge of what a character's class and capabilities are; something people have repeatedly justified by assuming that a guy in armor is necessarily a fighter and a guy in robes is necessarily a wizard AND that every PC group always contains both.


If I wanted more gritty fantasy with more character death and such, I'd write HP off and go with a hit spot-based system making every hit potentially lethal. Then same would apply to high level NPCs duking it out too. However, since I play heroic fantasy and use the HP system, it applies to the whole world. A bear fighting with a wolfpack would work off HP just as much as the party facing off with a Dragon. Sure, I'm not gonna actually play or roll out the bear vs. wolf-pack fight (unless it has relevance to the story), but the relevant part is that the combatants followed the same rules as everyone else. Therefore, all the combat that happens "off camera" follows the same rules and thus all the beings of the world know those rules since those are the rules of the world.

Fine, if you want to do it that way, but then you're creating the problem that was the point of the OP: The fighter can't "hold aggro" because you're no longer using HP as an abstraction and people have to reason to fear melee weapons to the degree they otherwise would.


Point being, whenever I play, the world has uniform rules. Everyone goes by the same rules save possibly for action points (which are specifically defined as a heroic trait - HP is not). My definition of internally consistent is just that - the same rules apply to all sitiuations and all beings in the world. I'm fine with you disagreeing with that, but that doesn't change anything.

There's more than one way to generate internal consistency. I don't have any problem with fighters not "holding aggro" because monsters don't "know" they have hitpoints, or that they gain more of them as their career goes along. There's nothing apparent about it; they only represent how things work for purposes of gameplay, not how it would work in fights that have no relevance to the PCs.

If I were writing a novel set in a D&D game world I wouldn't feel compelled to make every character's hitpoints deplete in melee every single time. If some heroic warrior needed to die from the first sword hit to advance the story, so be it. That just doesn't happen to happen to PCs during the game unless they get REALLY unlucky.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-16, 11:01 AM
Um, yes, he CAN actually hurt you. This is rapidly approaching circular argument. "The fighter can't hurt you because fighter attacks are ineffective. We know they are ineffective because they can't actually hurt you!"Stealthy melee combatants are the masters of dealing damage in 3.x. Barbarians and Fighters are a close second. Direct damage, however, is one of the slowest ways of killing stuff. Anyone who lives in a world with both magic and combat should know this, especially monsters that can survive several hits from a Barbarian's PA.
Aside from the fact that power attack and criticals most certainly CAN do very significant damage, especially with iterative attacks, the fighter can take martial study feats and get access to up to 3 martial maneuvers.But that's still a method of fighting that most likely takes a minimum of 2 turns to kill anything non-humanoid. Even my Warblade takes that much.
Furthermore, assuming that the fighter is a fighter is giving metagame knowledge to the attacker in and of itself, unless the attacker is familiar with the person or has conducted a very thourough reconaissance through magic or something. A Warblade or Crusader doesn't look any different from a fighter.Correct. However, they all wear large amounts of armor and carry a big weapon. The impression of someone seeing them would therefore be of someone hard to hurt and experienced in surviving combat, but not as immediately dangerous as a Caster or Rogue. Tactically, any well-roleplayed opponent should notice this and react accordingly.
This isn't Shadowrun. There's these things called clerics and druids; less easily "geeked" you know.But still much more beneficial to fight early in combat rather than late. A Cleric will buff and a Druid will summon, so attacking either immediately is far more beneficial than attacking the Fighter, whose damage level remains consistent throughout the duration of the fight.
Suppose that guy with the staff and the robes, speaking a funny language turns out to be a druid. Oops.. "geek the mage first" just became "fight a bear/dire lion/fire elemental in hand-to-hand combat".First, why isn't the Druid already a bear? And wearing armor? They're proficient, you know. Second, it's still best to fight him before he gets Barkskin+1d3 allies+Enlarged Companion. Buff-casters like Bards, Clerics, and Druids need to be beaten on early, as action conservation means they are at their weakest in the early rounds.
If every antagonist the party come up against is making their decisions based on what the party's capabilities are, the DM is blatantly metagaming, unless the party is wearing a sign on everyone's back announcing their profession.A sign like Fighters wearing armor, the Druid staying Shapechanged all day, the Wizard not wearing armor, a Cleric wearing a holy symbol, and a Rogue in leathers designed for camouflage? The bandits don't have to be the CIA to figure this out, you know.
Sure, some attackers will have that knowledge, but others should not. If the attackers are going after the guy in robes because "he's a wizard", then that may be justified if they're the sort to make snap assumptions, because assuming the guy in robes (if anyone in robes is present at all) is a wizard is just that - a snap assumption.And a usually correct one. Going without armor in combat is dangerous, and any character that does so needs a good reason. ASF is a good reason, and one that most people would expect. Snap judgments have their merits.

Diamondeye
2008-09-16, 11:21 AM
Stealthy melee combatants are the masters of dealing damage in 3.x. Barbarians and Fighters are a close second. Direct damage, however, is one of the slowest ways of killing stuff. Anyone who lives in a world with both magic and combat should know this, especially monsters that can survive several hits from a Barbarian's PA.

Firt of all, so what if stealthy types are the "masters of dealing damage"?

Second, some monsters can survive several "hits" from a barbarians PA; for these monsters HP represent bulk, mass, toughness, etc. Others don't survive "hits" even if those are mechanical hits according the the combat system; loss of hitpoints for many creatures represents energy reserves that are depleted by a desperate avoidance of the blow. When the hitpoints are worn down the victim is tired, off-balance, or otherwise vulnerable to a death blow.


But that's still a method of fighting that most likely takes a minimum of 2 turns to kill anything non-humanoid. Even my Warblade takes that much.

So what?


Correct. However, they all wear large amounts of armor and carry a big weapon. The impression of someone seeing them would therefore be of someone hard to hurt and experienced in surviving combat, but not as immediately dangerous as a Caster or Rogue.

No, not necessarily true. The rogue is only more dangerous when circumstances favor him; a creature immune to crits or facing him one-on-one won't see it that way.

Furthermore, this again gives metagame understanding of hitpoints to creatures. From most creature's perspective, getting run through with a sword is deadly. Maybe less deadly than the wizard, but being less deadly does not mean harmless, nor that they would be cavalier about allowing the warrior to attack unmolested.



Tactically, any well-roleplayed opponent should notice this and react accordingly.

Not all opponents have tha bility to "notie this and react accordingly" especially since you are underestimating seriously the danger the melee character poses. If they can kill the attacker in 2-3 rounds, that's 12-18 seconds of potential life from an in-game perspective. Even if it takes them 6, that's still well under a minute of potential lifespan. They should definitely be trepidations about ignoring someone who can do that.


But still much more beneficial to fight early in combat rather than late. A Cleric will buff and a Druid will summon, so attacking either immediately is far more beneficial than attacking the Fighter, whose damage level remains consistent throughout the duration of the fight.

The fighter' damage level doesn't necessarily remian consistent. Martial Study. Elder Mountain Hammer.


First, why isn't the Druid already a bear?

He doesn't feel like walking around in bear form when there's no fight going on? He's trying to trick you into attacking him because you think he's a wizard?


And wearing armor? They're proficient, you know.

Yes, obviously it's impossible to wear robes over armor.


Second, it's still best to fight him before he gets Barkskin+1d3 allies+Enlarged Companion. Buff-casters like Bards, Clerics, and Druids need to be beaten on early, as action conservation means they are at their weakest in the early rounds.

Yes, it's best to do so, but even if he has NONE of this, he's harder to kill in melee than a wizard because he has more hitpoints, better AC, a better weapon and a higher BAB.


A sign like Fighters wearing armor,

Wearing armor doesn't say "fighter" it says "any one of over half a dozen nonstealthy melee combatants"


the Druid staying Shapechanged all day,

They may or may not do this


the Wizard not wearing armor,

Spellsword. Twighlight Mithril Chain Shirt. Spellsinger.


a Cleric wearing a holy symbol,

Under his armor? Paladins don't wear holy symbols? Other characters never do?


and a Rogue in leathers designed for camouflage?

A Ranger? Scout? Swordsage? And really, how many frequently do people wear camoflage leather?


The bandits don't have to be the CIA to figure this out, you know. And a usually correct one. Going without armor in combat is dangerous, and any character that does so needs a good reason. ASF is a good reason, and one that most people would expect. Snap judgments have their merits.

When that's the best you can do. The problem is that they won't work universally. You can't generalize that just because the snap judgement that this time the guy in robes is a wizard this time that he will be next time, or that a guy in something else isn't.

Part of 3.X is the dizzying combinations of multiclass charaters. You can't just handwave these problems away; if you do any assumption about how people would "react intelligently" is only true within any given example.

Matthew
2008-09-16, 11:30 AM
Barbarian Swashbuckler or Swordsage or Duelist Factotem Crusader Warblade Warblade.

I see no need for any of them to be Fighters. It's a class that does nothing well, and I don't think 4e made it any better.

Wow. Talk about missing the point.

Eldariel
2008-09-16, 11:38 AM
*snip*

You do realize this is going nowhere right? You've posted the same arguments maybe 10 times and same goes for me. This is not a case of "not understanding what you are saying" (or the other way around, I hope), but simply disagreeing with it. Since this is going nowhere, I'll avoid responding to your posts from now on.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-16, 11:49 AM
Second, some monsters can survive several "hits" from a barbarians PA; for these monsters HP represent bulk, mass, toughness, etc. Others don't survive "hits" even if those are mechanical hits according the the combat system; loss of hitpoints for many creatures represents energy reserves that are depleted by a desperate avoidance of the blow. When the hitpoints are worn down the victim is tired, off-balance, or otherwise vulnerable to a death blow.But it still to the character means they can survive for longer facing someone with a sword than they can facing the Wizard that can turn them into a newt with a few seconds work.
No, not necessarily true. The rogue is only more dangerous when circumstances favor him; a creature immune to crits or facing him one-on-one won't see it that way.I'm speaking in generalities here. Beyond that, though, the Rogue can kill most things better than a standard melee combatant, and if you are one of those things, you want to do whatever you can to get rid of the greatest danger, which is usually the Rogue more than the Fighter.
Furthermore, this again gives metagame understanding of hitpoints to creatures. From most creature's perspective, getting run through with a sword is deadly. Maybe less deadly than the wizard, but being less deadly does not mean harmless, nor that they would be cavalier about allowing the warrior to attack unmolested.Even if HP is dodging, and not injury, it still means the character can survive a few engagements with the sword-wielder.
Not all opponents have tha bility to "notie this and react accordingly" especially since you are underestimating seriously the danger the melee character poses. If they can kill the attacker in 2-3 rounds, that's 12-18 seconds of potential life from an in-game perspective. Even if it takes them 6, that's still well under a minute of potential lifespan. They should definitely be trepidations about ignoring someone who can do that.But when your options are "Stand toe-to-toe with a guy in armor while his buddy throws fireballs at my back" and "Kill the caster, exposing my back to the sword wielder for a short time, then turn to face him", any combatant who has survived to level 5 should know which is safer.
The fighter' damage level doesn't necessarily remian consistent. Martial Study. Elder Mountain Hammer. But his damage output isn't constrained by the duration. A buffer like a Cleric is at his least dangerous early on, and grows more dangerous as he gets time to cast. A fighter, even one with limited-use abilities, is approximately as dangerous in the beginning as in the end. He may have a spellstoring weapon or Martial Maneuver, but that will be discharged no matter what his opponent does, so it's not the same thing as a Cleric who gets more dangerous as you ignore him.
Yes, obviously it's impossible to wear robes over armor.Not and not have it noticeable.
Yes, it's best to do so, but even if he has NONE of this, he's harder to kill in melee than a wizard because he has more hitpoints, better AC, a better weapon and a higher BAB. But he's easier to kill than a Fighter, at least for a couple rounds.
Wearing armor doesn't say "fighter" it says "any one of over half a dozen nonstealthy melee combatants"But that doesn't change my point. People are going to want to take out the most dangerous, easiest to kill things first. Fighters, monks, and the like are least dangerous, hardest to kill(from a melee perspective). There is no reasonable reason not to go after them last.
Spellsword. Twighlight Mithril Chain Shirt. Spellsinger.

Under his armor? Paladins don't wear holy symbols? Other characters never do?

A Ranger? Scout? Swordsage? And really, how many frequently do people wear camoflage leather?Nitpicking. I was using those classes as archetypes, not actual definitions. People with similar equipment usually serve similar roles in combat, and people experienced in combat usually can tell what those roles are based on the equipment. However, to avoid confusion, I'll call them Thief, Batman, CoDzilla(CDZ), Blaster, and Meatshield(BSF).
When that's the best you can do. The problem is that they won't work universally. You can't generalize that just because the snap judgement that this time the guy in robes is a wizard this time that he will be next time, or that a guy in something else isn't.But generally he will. Nothing is certain. You have to play the probabliities to survive. Yes, maybe you'll die one time out of 50 because that guy you thought was a Batman was actually just a scholar, but that's better than dying the other 49 times because you ignored the guy in robes and he had his pet lizard turn into a dragon and eat you.
Part of 3.X is the dizzying combinations of multiclass charaters. You can't just handwave these problems away; if you do any assumption about how people would "react intelligently" is only true within any given example.But roles are definable, outside of the class system. Roles determine what characters do in combat, and that usually is guessable based on clues about their persons. Not always, but intelligence is never perfect.

Draz74
2008-09-16, 11:54 AM
They are to me.
Cool, that's interesting to know. So you think the D&D Fighter class should be designed to be a particularly effective solo-type class, less needful of having a party than other classes? Hmmm. I guess I can actually sympathize with that, even though it's different than I've thought in the past. Good luck convincing other people, though, that the Fighter is supposed to be a solo-type, rather than a member of the Iconic Party of Four.


What has that to do with it?
I guess it doesn't have to have anything to do with it. But if Fighters aren't supposed to be heavily-armored types, maybe the game rules should actually support that better. By not giving all Fighters automatic heavy armor proficiency, and by giving them some other half-decent way to defend themselves (e.g. Class Defense Bonuses).


Which was (part of) the point of this thread: to discuss whether "defender" should be a combat role which fighters have to fulfil. I said no, because that is so limited (and dull) as to rule out exactly the sorts of characters we know as fighters from the Fighter class, as you point out.
OK. But it still seems to me like "the front-liner," the tank, the Defender, is a big enough role that some classes should be focused on it. If not the Fighter, then who? Paladins only?


They're Fighters. If defending is the right tactic for the situation, then they defend; if striking is then they strike etc.
OK. But it's natural to think, then, that if there's a class that focuses on marshal defending, he'd be better at defending than the Fighter. And if there's a class that focuses on striking, he'd be better at striking than the Fighter. (You, unlike most of the rest of us, don't seem to think that's what the Rogue should be doing ... but you can't deny that it makes sense for someone (Ranger?) to be a specialized combat Striker and end up better at it than someone with less of a specialized focus.) If the Fighter is the jack-of-all-melee-combat-trades, master of none, will he ever get played? Is being able to switch tactics flexibly worth the trade-off of specialization?


Conan; John Carter; D'Artagnan; Sinbad; Perseus; Ajax; Achilles (Achilies is a particularly good example, IMO, of a high level 1e fighter); and Sir William Marshall spring to mind.
Meh ... I have to say I agree, but only in a system with very generic, customizable classes. Yes, in my homebrew system where the only base classes are Warrior, Rogue, Commoner, and Mage, those examples would all be Warriors. But in a system like 3e D&D where there are so many, so-not-customizable classes, the characters you name are far too disparate to all be the same class.

Matthew
2008-09-16, 12:08 PM
Meh ... I have to say I agree, but only in a system with very generic, customizable classes. Yes, in my homebrew system where the only base classes are Warrior, Rogue, Commoner, and Mage, those examples would all be Warriors. But in a system like 3e D&D where there are so many, so-not-customizable classes, the characters you name are far too disparate to all be the same class.

This is key. It is noticable that 3e originally was not designed for tons of new classes. The 3.0 expansions contain almost none (Oriental Adventures is the exception). The default system presents eleven classes that are supposed to fill the various broad archetype roles. The 3.5 revision completely changed the focus of the expansion material.

To put it another way, the fighter class was not designed with the expectation that the broad roles it filled would be gradually supplanted by future expansions.

hamlet
2008-09-16, 12:11 PM
Cool, that's interesting to know. So you think the D&D Fighter class should be designed to be a particularly effective solo-type class, less needful of having a party than other classes? Hmmm. I guess I can actually sympathize with that, even though it's different than I've thought in the past. Good luck convincing other people, though, that the Fighter is supposed to be a solo-type, rather than a member of the Iconic Party of Four.


I guess it doesn't have to have anything to do with it. But if Fighters aren't supposed to be heavily-armored types, maybe the game rules should actually support that better. By not giving all Fighters automatic heavy armor proficiency, and by giving them some other half-decent way to defend themselves (e.g. Class Defense Bonuses).


OK. But it still seems to me like "the front-liner," the tank, the Defender, is a big enough role that some classes should be focused on it. If not the Fighter, then who? Paladins only?


OK. But it's natural to think, then, that if there's a class that focuses on marshal defending, he'd be better at defending than the Fighter. And if there's a class that focuses on striking, he'd be better at striking than the Fighter. (You, unlike most of the rest of us, don't seem to think that's what the Rogue should be doing ... but you can't deny that it makes sense for someone (Ranger?) to be a specialized combat Striker and end up better at it than someone with less of a specialized focus.) If the Fighter is the jack-of-all-melee-combat-trades, master of none, will he ever get played? Is being able to switch tactics flexibly worth the trade-off of specialization?


Meh ... I have to say I agree, but only in a system with very generic, customizable classes. Yes, in my homebrew system where the only base classes are Warrior, Rogue, Commoner, and Mage, those examples would all be Warriors. But in a system like 3e D&D where there are so many, so-not-customizable classes, the characters you name are far too disparate to all be the same class.

I think you might be missing Nagora's point.

His opinion is, I think, that the Fighter's archetype shoudn't be "the defender" or "the tank" at all. That's a function of how the character is played and is, when applied directly to rules mechanics to force a certain type of play, a serious detriment to the game.

Instead, the fighter's archetype is "the guy who's good with weapons and armor." The martial combatant. His "role" in any violent situation is dependent upon need. He defends when defending is needed. Attacks when attacking is needed. He'll tank when required to, or strip off his armor when mobility is important.

The archetypes and roles should not be defined according to such narrow views as striker, commander, or defender or whatever they are any more. They should be defined in much looser terms.

A mage is the guy who uses arcane magic. A cleric serves the gods and in return receives their power. A thief goes via stealth and subterfeuge rather than blunt force. A fighter moves via martial combat mastery.

D&D 3.x and D&D 4.0 have seriously dropped the ball in this respect by nearly compelling you to play your character a certain way, else he's seriously less than usefull within the party. Heck, 3.x essentially made the Fighter a non-entity and an NPC class! That's just bad design.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-16, 12:16 PM
D&D 3.x and D&D 4.0 have seriously dropped the ball in this respect by nearly compelling you to play your character a certain way, else he's seriously less than usefull within the party. Heck, 3.x essentially made the Fighter a non-entity and an NPC class! That's just bad design.I currently have a Wizard meatshield and a Warblade controller/defender. I could make a Rogue debuffer if I really wanted to. If you can't make your class do what you want(assuming the class has options at all), then it's your fault.