Legends and Lore: Fighters and Combat Superiority

Soooo... force points, huh?
This system (DDN playtest "Combat Superiority") sounds promising.  Seems to cover all the bases and parallels the Rogue scheme system somewhat.  Looking forward to seeing the details.  Thanks!

-DS

This is a game of expression and exploration. You're right that there are a lot of complaints about how bad these rules are. But it's not because they're not following the rules, it's because they're not breaking them.”  --- akhenmosis

I like how it looks like they are including Duelist, Archer, Shield (defender), or simply more damage or damage reduction.  I was hoping Archer and Swashbuckler would be build in as fighter options (looks like The Most Annoying Rogue Ever is a Fighter in 5e).
This is.....actually pretty interesting o.o. I'll keep an eye on this.
None of the examples of things a Fighter can do in this article inspire any great confidence in me. Bonus damage, reduce damage, defend an ally, take an extra attack when an enemy misses? It's a wash overall, and not particularly exciting. 

On the other hand, one of the things I've been toying with is a resource system that refreshes round by round, where you can invest the points into passive abilities, or use them for active abilities, some of which reduce your resource cap until you take a rest. The system laid out in this article actually works pretty similarly, just with dice instead of points, and without any indication of abilities that can reduce your dice for the rest of combat/day. 

Anyway what I'm getting at is the system itself isn't terrible. It gives Fighters a resource that could potentially be expanded on and used, but dressed up as something unique that feels different. It could be workable if the developers give Fighters actual abilities to use with it, and not just more damage/attacks as it currently looks to be.
I would say I love this idea and that I'm anxious to see where it goes, but, somebody else would just come along and say they HATE it.  Then, I'd feel silly for saying I love it in the first place.  Hmm . . . maybe it would be better to say I like the idea.  Love is such a strong word, after all ;).
/\ Art
I'm going to tentatively not freak out about this. What he describes sounds like it could possibly not suck. My main consideration then becomes what 5E can do to deliver the experience of the 4E Fighter or Defender role in general, with the power, control and feeling of invincibility(using that invincibility as a tactical weapon) it provided, which need not come from the Fighter class specifically.
...whatever
Im a bit disappointed the Fighter will steal the Two-Weapon Fighting, making everyone else wannabes. But if any class should get Two-Weapons, it should be the Fighter.

Especially. Because.

The have turned the 5e Fighter into the agile light-armor high-Dex Fighter: Two-Weapon Fighting, Swashbuckler, and so on. At least, it is possible to build a Fighter this way.



Actually, with the Fighter being the Dex Fighter, the Ranger now becomes a mystery. Probably the Ranger will still be the Archer? And may focus more on Stealth? For hunter or spy. I doubt the Ranger will pick up primal-shamanic spells, but who knows?

I like the earlier announcement, the Ranger will get a “Favored Terrain” feature. As long as Urban (Covert Ops Ranger), Aquatic (Viking Ranger), and Subterranean (awesome) are terrain options, itl be cool. Forest, grassland, mountains, desert, wetland, are likely standard options. In this sense, the Ranger is the Scout.
Trading damage for effects is how I've seen this working for a while.

As long as we see some uses that allow for stuns, knock backs, etc it bodes very well for the fighter IMO.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Trading damage for effects is how I've seen this working for a while.

Methodologically, hit points are so fundamental: damage for effect, can be a balanced trade.
Wow, this is the first time that I actually think they came up with a good idea.

I like it maybe they will have a progression that works like:

1d4
2d6
3d8
4d10
5d12

or something like that. So that it goes up quadratically and can keep up wit the wizards 36+ spell slots...



I'm personally more hoping that they decide to expand the number of abilities granted. 11 combat superiority abilities over 20 levels seems pretty lame. At least grant one every level.


As far as scaling on the dice, I'd probably go with:


1: 1d4 (2.5)
2: 1d6 (3.5, +1)
3: 1d8 (4.5, +1)
4: 1d10 (5.5, +1)
5: 1d12 (6.5, +1)
6: 2d6 (7, +.5)
7: 2d8 (9, +2)
8: 2d10 (11, +2)
9: 2d12 (13, +2)
10: 4d6 (14, +1)
11: 4d8 (18, +4)
13: 4d10 (22, +4)
14: 4d12 (26, +4) 
15: 8d6 (28, +2)
16: 8d8 (36, +8)
17: 8d10 (44, +8)
18: 8d12 (52, +8)
19: 16d6 (56, +4)
20: 16d8 (72, +16)
 

Basically every 4 levels the dice split, and the fighter's damage/point gain per level doubles. Average damage and gain from previous level in parenthesis.

I know these numbers are probably higher than most people want (or at least more dice rolling), but keep in mind you'd be expected to be spending most of the dice on special abilities and such. The damage bonus is your fallback for when nothing else works for whatever reason.
Martial scrolls?

Wait can fighters even read?

:p

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

ok, now that i read the article with more calm (kinda tired, because i was just finished playing D&D for 6 hours straight), i suppose it could work...my problem is that dices are too unreliable imo, but if those dices can be spended to do insteresting stuff instead of just adding or substracting mods, it could work...because it would work...now the question is...how often do it recharge...short rest or extended rest? Can you use many of your dices for a single action, can you use only one, or choose how many you use on the same action?

I am glad they ditched the, grant extra themes non-exclusives crap.  But time will tell if combat superiority can be used to do interesting stuff without asking "DM may I?"or be turned into a dull modifiers in disguise...
Actually I have.

I have done quite a bit of martial arts study and learned most of what I know by taking from books and practicing it with other martial artists.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

All very good questions Mexrage.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

ok, now that i read the article with more calm (kinda tired, because i was just finished playing D&D for 6 hours straight), i suppose it could work...my problem is that dices are too unreliable imo, but if those dices can be spended to do insteresting stuff instead of just adding or substracting mods, it could work...because it would work...now the question is...how often do it recharge...short rest or extended rest? Can you use many of your dices for a single action, can you use only one, or choose how many you use on the same action?




From the article:
On a fighter’s turn, the player receives a number of dice to represent that fighter’s skill at arms




So the dice recharge every turn. Nothing says how much can be put on a single action, but the implication is all of it.
actually, i interpreted that as poorly worded, i think he meant that on his turn he use the dices from combat superiority, seerow.  So far, most things on D&DNext has been very poorly explained and worded...and english isn't even my native lenguage, if you get confused for poorly worded rules...imagine how i feel =V
Every turn...and now you want to start talking about either multiple pools or stuff like 16d8?

LOL.

"B..b..but a wizard can still cast a fireball, surely my 130 points of extra damage or 17 special actions is boring compared to that!!!111!"

Fortunately -they- (wotc) haven't stated what the 'top end' is or anything else that goes along with it.  However, after seeing the immediate responses in this and one other thread with beholder-avatar-guy...I'm convinced that 'balance' is no longer anywhere near what many are looking for.   They just want the wizard flat-out destroyed.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

actually, i interpreted that as poorly worded, i think he meant that on his turn he use the dices from combat superiority, seerow



What is there to cause you to make that assumption?
Heh, you guys above might want to revise your extremely high damage dice.



Level: Dice = Average Damage

L1: 1d4 = 2½
L2: 1d6 = 3½
L3: 1d8 = 4½

L4: 1d6 + 1d4 = 6
L5: 1d6 + 1d6 = 7
L6: 1d6 + 1d8 = 8

L7: 2d6 + 1d4 = 9½
L8: 2d6 + 1d6 = 10½
L9: 2d6 + 1d8 = 11½

L10: 3d6 + 1d4 = 13
L11: 3d6 + 1d6 = 14 
...


L14: 4d6 + 1d6 = 17½
...
  

L17: 5d6 + 1d6 = 21
...


L20: 6d6 + 1d6 = 24½
Heh, you guys above might want to revise your extremely high damage dice.



Level: Average Damage = Dice

L1: “1d4” = 2½
L2: 1d6 = 3½
L3: 1d8 = 4½

L4: 1d6 + 1d4 = 6
L5: 1d6 + 1d6 = 7
L6: 1d6 + 1d8 = 8

L7: 2d6 + 1d4 = 9½
L8: 2d6 + 1d6 = 10½
L9: 2d6 + 1d8 = 11½

L10: 3d6 + 1d4 = 13
...



Indeed, that's why i said...dices are too unreliable...and it would lead to a problem of rolling too many dices at the table (i have no problem with that, because i no longer play on a real table, i play thru third party VTT).

rolling +10d6 as a 3.5 spell...damn, that was a real pain in the ass, to the point that i didn't wanted to cast those spells, just because i didn't wanted to roll and sum like 12 dices...
Wow, this is the first time that I actually think they came up with a good idea.

I like it maybe they will have a progression that works like:

1d4
2d6
3d8
4d10
5d12

or something like that. So that it goes up quadratically and can keep up wit the wizards 36+ spell slots...



I'm personally more hoping that they decide to expand the number of abilities granted. 11 combat superiority abilities over 20 levels seems pretty lame. At least grant one every level.


As far as scaling on the dice, I'd probably go with:


1: 1d4 (2.5)
2: 1d6 (3.5, +1)
3: 1d8 (4.5, +1)
4: 1d10 (5.5, +1)
5: 1d12 (6.5, +1)
6: 2d6 (7, +.5)
7: 2d8 (9, +2)
8: 2d10 (11, +2)
9: 2d12 (13, +2)
10: 4d6 (14, +1)
11: 4d8 (18, +4)
13: 4d10 (22, +4)
14: 4d12 (26, +4) 
15: 8d6 (28, +2)
16: 8d8 (36, +8)
17: 8d10 (44, +8)
18: 8d12 (52, +8)
19: 16d6 (56, +4)
20: 16d8 (72, +16)
 

Basically every 4 levels the dice split, and the fighter's damage/point gain per level doubles. Average damage and gain from previous level in parenthesis.

I know these numbers are probably higher than most people want (or at least more dice rolling), but keep in mind you'd be expected to be spending most of the dice on special abilities and such. The damage bonus is your fallback for when nothing else works for whatever reason.



I doubt it will be anywhere near that high especially since one of the ideas they put forth was soaking damage. If you can soak 72 damage a round and things pose a credible threat to you, they would one shot everyone else.  I doubt many people want to be one shotted at level twenty on a routine basis.  There may be more to it obviously, like a cap on damage soaking, a ratio etc.  But at that rate given that the base abilities of the fighter probably wont suck he would out power every class by a pretty large margin unless the other classes end up radically different than what we have seen.  Which would be fine with me because combat should be the fighters arena.  But, they have said they want classes roughly balanced in all 3 tiers.  I'd rather have overall balance and let some classes own in certain areas, but ah well. 
Ankelika,

I actually made the mistake of misreading the die as something that did not refresh on a per round basis.

If that is the case then the lower die progression is really not an issue.

The other die figures being proposed were assuming a daily limit on the die pool.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Heh, you guys above might want to revise your extremely high damage dice.



Level: Average Damage = Dice

L1: “1d4” = 2½
L2: 1d6 = 3½
L3: 1d8 = 4½

L4: 1d6 + 1d4 = 6
L5: 1d6 + 1d6 = 7
L6: 1d6 + 1d8 = 8

L7: 2d6 + 1d4 = 9½
L8: 2d6 + 1d6 = 10½
L9: 2d6 + 1d8 = 11½

L10: 3d6 + 1d4 = 13
L11: 3d6 + 1d6 = 14 
...



Now this...this is reasonable and barring one listed application (nullifying a hit), I like the idea.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Ankelika, I actually made the mistake of misreading the die as something that did not refresh on a per round basis. If that is the case then the lower die progression is really not an issue. The other die figures being proposed were assuming a daily limit on the die pool.



Ahhh, alright then.  So noted.  Yah, you wanna talk about 'nova', wait till you can nullify all 740 of a dragon's attacks -and- kill it with 12,800 points of damage lol.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Yeah no,

If daily limit and those higher figures applied we would also have assumed one die per round or one die per action.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Every turn...and now you want to start talking about either multiple pools or stuff like 16d8?

LOL.

"B..b..but a wizard can still cast a fireball, surely my 130 points of extra damage or 17 special actions is boring compared to that!!!111!"

Fortunately -they- (wotc) haven't stated what the 'top end' is or anything else that goes along with it.  However, after seeing the immediate responses in this and one other thread with beholder-avatar-guy...I'm convinced that 'balance' is no longer anywhere near what many are looking for.   They just want the wizard flat-out destroyed.



16d8 is 72 extra damage, not 130, and that only comes at level 20. The numbers are far lower than that even just a level or two lower. I'm also going to point out you are comparing the example Fighter at level 20 with a 3rd level spell. A more correct response might have been "The Wizard can still cast gate!" or "The wizard can still cast shapechange!" and so on. 

Frankly, the actual damage is the least important part. Raw damage has always been pretty a pretty meaningless measure of combat ability, this is one of the main reasons the Fighter has suffered in previous editions, because the developers assumed giving him damage was enough. Adding a bunch of damage means little. The more important thing is having effects you can trade that damage out to get. If a Fighter can drop 5 dice to act as though under the influence of haste, for example. Or if he can drop 4 dice to make any enemy attacking him roll with disadvantage. Or make an attack action sacrificing 3 dice to daze the opponent for one round. I'd figure a lot of the abilities you can trade out for you just set and leave on until you decide to change it, so you don't have the fiddly micromanagement of dealing with 17 actions round by round, but you can make the decision at will to change what you are using to fit new situations.

I doubt it will be anywhere near that high especially since one of the ideas they put forth was soaking damage. If you can soak 72 damage a round and things pose a credible threat to you, they would one shot everyone else.  I doubt many people want to be one shotted at level twenty on a routine basis.  There may be more to it obviously, like a cap on damage soaking, a ratio etc.  But at that rate given that the base abilities of the fighter probably wont suck he would out power every class by a pretty large margin unless the other classes end up radically different than what we have seen.  Which would be fine with me because combat should be the fighters arena.  But, they have said they want classes roughly balanced in all 3 tiers.  I'd rather have overall balance and let some classes own in certain areas, but ah well. 



If you actually soak that much damage, you're not doing anything else that round, and thus are failing to provide a threat, meaning enemies actually aren't going to bother attacking you. Or they'll attack you with status effects that don't care about your damage resistance. Either way, the Fighter being really durable at the cost of doing anything else I don't see as being an issue.
As an aside, they've said this new fighter mechanic is taking away from stuff they had planned for the maneuvers module. So the question is, what are rogues and other mundane classes going to do to get their cool stuff? We've got Fighter resource/abilities as a baseline now, will this be shared with other mundane classes or will they be left in the dust because WotC can't understand Fighter/Wizard is a small part of a bigger problem of Mundane/Caster?
Well if its per round then that changes everything. Now unless the maneuvers are really weak, then the fighter will be more powerful by far than the casters.

The fighter can stun a creature every round and the caster can only stun 1d4 creatures once per encounter.

The fighter can absorb 4d6 damage each round and the caster can absord 40 hit points once per 2 encounters.

The fighter can deal an extra 4d6 damage each round and the caster can deal 4d6 damage once or twice per encounter...



I agree that completely at will has issues. The biggest issue with Fighter vs Wizard in the past has been Fighter = At Will and Wizard = Limited Resource.

This is also why in my first post I provided a solution: Let the points refresh by turn, but some abilities reduce your maximum dice pool until you can take a rest (extended or short, whatever). So you can do weaker stuff round by round with constant refreshing, or you can use more potent abilities that drain you. (Say a stunning attack requires a 4 dice trade out, but lowers your dicepool cap by 2. So spamming stun will drain you very quickly and cause you to make sacrifices in other areas)
Good point and good questions Seerow.

Perhaps the maneuvers will still take place and the die will just be able to override any associated penalties or drawbacks without the fighter having to specialize in any particular maneuver.

Or instead of picking maneuvers to be good at and then being just average when that situation does not present itself you can now default to more damage until such time as your chosen specialty would become available.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

If someone wants to “fight” with weapons, probably they need to multiclass as a Fighter. To some degree I am fine with the Fighter owning “fighting”.

In fact, since the Wizard gets atwill spells, I prefer if the arcane Wizard class gets no martial weapon proficiencies. Let certain backgrounds supply weapon proficiencies.

The Rogue deals by means of sneak attack. The Cleric depends on domain.

I wonder what will happen to unarmed combat, Monk style?
Seerow the idea of draining max pool actually fits with what we are talking about on Balancing Fighters with Vancian Magic.

That could definitely work. We'd have to look pretty closely at the progression though. Would stun draining 2 die be a fair price across all levels if we are just progressing # die every 3 levels?

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Im a bit disappointed the Fighter will steal the Two-Weapon Fighting, making everyone else wannabes. But if any class should get Two-Weapons, it should be the Fighter.

Especially. Because.

The have turned the 5e Fighter into the agile light-armor high-Dex Fighter: Two-Weapon Fighting, Swashbuckler, and so on. At least, it is possible to build a Fighter this way.



Actually, with the Fighter being the Dex Fighter, the Ranger now becomes a mystery. Probably the Ranger will still be the Archer? And may focus more on Stealth? For hunter or spy. I doubt the Ranger will pick up primal-shamanic spells, but who knows?

I like the earlier announcement, the Ranger will get a “Favored Terrain” feature. As long as Urban (Covert Ops Ranger), Aquatic (Viking Ranger), and Subterranean (awesome) are terrain options, itl be cool. Forest, grassland, mountains, desert, wetland, are likely standard options. In this sense, the Ranger is the Scout.




I'm hoping that the fighter will be the only class that is set up to be defined by what weapons you pick/fighting style.

I've always despised the twf/archer thing with rangers.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Is it just me or is this nothing more than a slow and roundabout way of giving the fighter some fairly boring at-will powers?  Maybe I am not seeing it, but this doesn't really seem to be that interesting of a mechanic it certainly doesn't provide the fighter anywhere near the complexity that a variety of maneuvers would.  It actually looks like the 4e slayer and knight have more interesting choices to make in combat than the 5e fighter.  Oh well, I wonder what the barbarian will look like. 
Is it just me or is this nothing more than a slow and roundabout way of giving the fighter some fairly boring at-will powers?  Maybe I am not seeing it, but this doesn't really seem to be that interesting of a mechanic it certainly doesn't provide the fighter anywhere near the complexity that a variety of maneuvers would.  It actually looks like the 4e slayer and knight have more interesting choices to make in combat than the 5e fighter.  Oh well, I wonder what the barbarian will look like. 



What gets me is that we're going to see ' style specializations' for the Fighter once more.  While the Wizard can technically do it all again.
1. Come and get it did have the 4e equivalent of a will save, it targeted will, which is just like calling for a will save in 3e but more elegant and consistent.

2. Why is it illogical for monsters to get reflexive actions? it's a hell of a lot less book keeping then having to remember which monsters got hit as their turns pop up. That's what the movement of CaGi is, the monsters lunging forward at a perceived weakness, just like a PC with a reactive power or under the influence of a Warlord.

3. Enough! If I bitched and moaned about every stupid broken spell in 3e half as much as people moan about CaGi hurting their damned 'logic' or whatever this board would be nothing but me whining about transmutations.

4. This combat superiority thing has potential.
I'm hoping that the fighter will be the only class that is set up to be defined by what weapons you pick/fighting style.

What?

This is also why in my first post I provided a solution: Let the points refresh by turn, but some abilities reduce your maximum dice pool until you can take a rest (extended or short, whatever). So you can do weaker stuff round by round with constant refreshing, or you can use more potent abilities that drain you. (Say a stunning attack requires a 4 dice trade out, but lowers your dicepool cap by 2. So spamming stun will drain you very quickly and cause you to make sacrifices in other areas)


I actually like this idea.
Holy $@&@$& english_language and I finally agree on something.

The four horsemen will be arriving shortly.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Sign In to post comments