Fighter (and Rogue) should have backloaded abilities similar to spells

52 posts / 0 new
Last post
Looking at the abilities that the 5E martial classes get, I noticed that Fighters and Rogues have less choices at higher levels than their Arcane, Divine, and Ki brethren. After level ten, they get a single, bland power every couple of levels. I love the direction and improved abilities of the current fighters, but the fall short of the abilities of, say, the Wizard, who, at can do more damage over a larger area more times per day than the Fighter. 
 
I have not seen high-level play in 5E yet, but on paper, even if the classes are balanced, a single ability like Ace in the Hole or Combat Surge is not as fun as the Wizard spell options at that level.

A comparison:

The wizard gets the likes of:

- Cone of Cold
- Cloudkill
- Disintegrate
- Dominate person
- Finger of Death
- Chain Lightning
- And much, much more.

The fighter gets: 

- Combat Surge
-6d6 of extra damage and a set of low-power abilities to use with them

The rogue gets:

- Ace in the Hole
- 6d6 oof extra damage and a set of low-power abilities to use with them. 

Even if these abilities were balanced (and I don't believe that they are) they are bland compared to the wizards spells. 

My suggestion is to replace AitH and CS with a series of powers that work like spells mechanically, but do things that high level fighters do in other fantasy works. (Picture Legolas killing that Oliphant in the Return of the King film).

This give fighters are reason to go to high levels, and something for them to do when they get there.

Thoughts?
 

I think the solution here is to simply allow them to apply their dice to any maneuver they wish to attempt, whether or not it's one they've spcifically chosen, but the ones they do choose are more efficient. Sort of like what Mellored said: maneuvers should be the improved version rather than the only version.


Just to throw some options out there, we could say an improvised action is done at disadvantage with full effect dice or we could say that the effect dice are reduced. I prefer disadvantage 'cause it opens up maneuvers to be attempted by anyone and also encourages players to be creative about getting advantage.

The idea behind these psuedo-spells was to remove the chance of failure with awesome maneuvers. As it is, in order to do something cool, you need to make a check, and then an attack. The accuracy penalty is not worth the "cool" factor in most combats. It is often more effective to sit there and hit things. I want to make doing cool stuff an effecient use of your actions.

The idea behind these psuedo-spells was to remove the chance of failure with awesome maneuvers. As it is, in order to do something cool, you need to make a check, and then an attack. The accuracy penalty is not worth the "cool" factor in most combats. It is often more effective to sit there and hit things. I want to make doing cool stuff an effecient use of your actions.

Of course, but the nice thing about disadvantage is you can negate it with a little bit of ingenuity or use your advantage to pull off something that you've not actually tried that much. That's why I like disadvantage: it doesn't discourage the action but it does encourage the player to be creative about how they approach combat so they can negate the penalty.

Also, things you take a feat or class option to do will always outperform the basic menu of options. Otherwise there's no reason to pick. And the thing about spells is you can't have all of them ready all the time, so you either need to have non casters prepare maneuvers the same way casters prepare spells or you need to make it harder for them to use whatever maneuvers they haven't explicitly picked.


A third option would be to remove maneuvers entirely and use the effect dice for damage. Then you could run the whole thing on player improvisation without the framework and the potentially restrictive feeling it has.

Yeah, noncasters would prep maneuvers in the same way as casters. They would be weaker than spells in general, though. 

I think you're missing the point of this. It's to get away from effect dice and stuff like that at higher levels. Essentially, this streamlines the process of making checks to do something as a fighter and lets you do cool stuff without the DM's approval. 
Yeah, noncasters would prep maneuvers in the same way as casters. They would be weaker than spells in general, though. 

I think you're missing the point of this. It's to get away from effect dice and stuff like that at higher levels. Essentially, this streamlines the process of making checks to do something as a fighter and lets you do cool stuff without the DM's approval. 

Thing is, the effect dice themselves are reasonably popular. The specific implementation of them is a point of debate but one of the most positive points of DDN is the use of dice to determine the effects of various maneuvers.

And actually, prepping maneuvers from a list like spells doesn't let you do cool stuff without the DM's approval in the way you're describing because you're still presented with a narrow range of choices that you can't deviate from very easily. The fact that it changes day to day gives a bit of wiggle room, but I would argue that the real solution to letting folks have lots of options without the DM's approval is to provide a robust improvised action system that allows for all maneuvers to function but be just inferior enough to make the choice of maneuvers an important consideration to the character.


I think the maneuver system is just fine as it is. The solution here is to allow them to be done without knowing that maneuver at a reasonable penalty. That penalty could be anything; I happen to like disadvantage for the reasons I all ready stated.

what about hp, ac, survivability.... a mage should be a glass cannon, and a fighter a tank... thats where the balance should be. without a nearby fighter a mage should be toast, without the mage around the fighter should know numbers would eventually overwhelm him... thats what teamwork is for and no class should be so balanced that there really isnt a difference... if so then theres no need for teamwork, tactics, strategy... etc.  
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax

what about hp, ac, survivability.... a mage should be a glass cannon, and a fighter a tank... thats where the balance should be. without a nearby fighter a mage should be toast, without the mage around the fighter should know numbers would eventually overwhelm him... thats what teamwork is for and no class should be so balanced that there really isnt a difference... if so then theres no need for teamwork, tactics, strategy... etc.  

Agreed but I don't think that's what this is about. It's about the relative number of options and how to ensure that the martial classes still have a range of options that are comparable to the mystic classes.

My money's on improvised maneuvers.

My suggestion is to replace AitH and CS with a series of powers that work like spells mechanically

You lost me at works like spells. Using the same sort of mechanics across classes was one of 4e's biggest problem, the whole point of MDD is to insure that martial classes have mechanics that are different from spell casters. I'm not opposed to giving fighters powers instead of more dice or manuvers, but the mechanics have to be different then spells.


My suggestion is to replace AitH and CS with a series of powers that work like spells mechanically

You lost me at works like spells. Using the same sort of mechanics across classes was one of 4e's biggest problem, the whole point of MDD is to insure that martial classes have mechanics that are different from spell casters. I'm not opposed to giving fighters powers instead of more dice or manuvers, but the mechanics have to be different then spells.






Why?
My suggestion is to replace AitH and CS with a series of powers that work like spells mechanically

You lost me at works like spells. Using the same sort of mechanics across classes was one of 4e's biggest problem, the whole point of MDD is to insure that martial classes have mechanics that are different from spell casters. I'm not opposed to giving fighters powers instead of more dice or manuvers, but the mechanics have to be different then spells.






Why?



I think it's because there are a lot of people who don't like to role-play or storytell during combat.  So, to them, if the mechanics are the same then the abilities are the same.  But then there are people like myself who enjoy describing what's happening during combat.  Our priority is that the mechanics acheive the desired result.  Simplicity and consistency are good.  I can describe my character's actions however I want, and I don't want extra subsystems that exist simply for the sake of having different mechanics to get in the way of role-playing.
Why?

There are a couple of reasons, and it obviously varies from person to person. The most common complaints is that it made the classes feel too much alike, made them play too much alike, daily power for fighters made no sense, having all of the classes on the same ADEU structure always felt rigged rather then natural and all classes having daily powers made 5 minute work day problems worse.

I think these are all true to some extent, but I think some people take the feel and play too much alike argument too far. It did make classes tend to play more alike in terms of encounter strategy and power usage, but the classes still have a lot of tactical differences because of class abilities and differing types of powers they had access to. It was really that having all classes on ADEU that bothered me the most, it was so obviously setup for mechanical game balance that it got in the way of my game immersion.

Why?

There are a couple of reasons, and it obviously varies from person to person. The most common complaints is that it made the classes feel too much alike, made them play too much alike, daily power for fighters made no sense, having all of the classes on the same ADEU structure always felt rigged rather then natural and all classes having daily powers made 5 minute work day problems worse.

I think these are all true to some extent, but I think some people take the feel and play too much alike argument too far. It did make classes tend to play more alike in terms of encounter strategy and power usage, but the classes still have a lot of tactical differences because of class abilities and differing types of powers they had access to. It was really that having all classes on ADEU that bothered me the most, it was so obviously setup for mechanical game balance that it got in the way of my game immersion.




AEDU is fine if the effects are different. If the powers are just the exact same but reworded it's boring. Just like if the mechanics of 10 different classes were 10 different things but the end result was the same.
  Just like if the mechanics of 10 different classes were 10 different things but the end result was the same.


Like the kind of thing which can happen if you have no system of roles.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

/begin logic(OP)

If you think the game is only fun when you have the maximum choices per round...
And you think that the wizard or cleric has more choices per round than the fighter...

Play a wizard.

Stop trying to turn the fighter INTO a wizard.

/logic 
/begin misrepresentation of others.(OP)
 
goo

/misrepresentation of others.



  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Another logic would be fighters just being a minimum adapted to their fantasy environment.

Wizards have a lot of options to act, but fighters can be the opposite and based on reaction.
If a fighter is able to better resist adverse supernatural abilities, and able to adapt his fighting style to fantasy foes, the fighter can be considered as being as effective, powerful and balanced as a class with lot of options.

The problem comes from the idea that fighters are dumb unadaptable people swinging weapons, even when history tells us that war has always been a domain in constant evolution.
Fighters in D&D being weak against supernatural opponents when these are everywhere in many forms is a nonsense IMO, but I think that giving them spell-like abilities goes completly against the archetype.
/begin logic(OP)

If you think the game is only fun when you have the maximum choices per round...
And you think that the wizard or cleric has more choices per round than the fighter...

Play a wizard.

Stop trying to turn the fighter INTO a wizard.

/logic 



That is not logic. Why not design a system so ANY character class can have a multitude of choices per round?  Reminds me of the ol'  BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner video.
  Just like if the mechanics of 10 different classes were 10 different things but the end result was the same.


Like the kind of thing which can happen if you have no system of roles.


Roles didn't help 4e really. When the roles suited the class, it did help to define what a class was supposed to do and how it went about it. The role system had substantial downside though. It limited classes to the narrow specific roles as defined in 4e, 4e never got a non-healing leader class because leader was defined by healing powers to large extent. When classes where associated with the wrong role they played weirdly, fighter being pinned in defender when most people who play fighters are looking for a striker was the big one. They had to create the slayer later to fill that huge gap. Classes that didn't neatly fit into their role where a problem also, giving all clerics healing powers is fine, but depending on type their natural secondary role could be striker, defender or controller and 4e didn't handle that aspect well. There was also a big problem with wizard here, but that is even worse because it's natural role isn't even a role in 4e. The defining trait of a lot of wizards is flexibility, but 4e had no place for a class that isn't pinned to a specific role so they got shoved into controller.

  Just like if the mechanics of 10 different classes were 10 different things but the end result was the same.


Like the kind of thing which can happen if you have no system of roles.


Roles didn't help 4e really. When the roles suited the class, it did help to define what a class was supposed to do and how it went about it. The role system had substantial downside though. It limited classes to the narrow specific roles as defined in 4e, 4e never got a non-healing leader class because leader was defined by healing powers to large extent. When classes where associated with the wrong role they played weirdly, fighter being pinned in defender when most people who play fighters are looking for a striker was the big one. They had to create the slayer later to fill that huge gap. Classes that didn't neatly fit into their role where a problem also, giving all clerics healing powers is fine, but depending on type their natural secondary role could be striker, defender or controller and 4e didn't handle that aspect well. There was also a big problem with wizard here, but that is even worse because it's natural role isn't even a role in 4e. The defining trait of a lot of wizards is flexibility, but 4e had no place for a class that isn't pinned to a specific role so they got shoved into controller.




Prior to 4th classes did not have a role label this is true but did they not in fact actually have implicit roles?  Where was the non-cleric, non-druid healer in 1st?  The paladin and to a lesser extent ranger could heal a bit (so could the bard iirc) albeit all at mid+ range levels. Fighters weren't defenders of course as they didn't really have the tools to stop an intelligent creature from knocking the snot out of the magic user or rogues. But there was an expectation on what the classes were to do.

So who did this benefit?  Moving forward into 2nd and 3rd it benefitted casters greatly. They could out damage and out soak the fighters, out stealth and out detrapify the rogues, and in some ways made other classes obsolete except to jack a bunch of stuff with multiclassing. 4th just codified what was implied and balanced what players could do each round with a balanced action economy. Wizards still had ritual casting which helped with utility beyond what non-ritual casters could do.

TLDR version:  regardless of what label, if any, you put on a class they will naturally gravitate to doing certain things within the context of a party in the aggregate.  Don't call a DDN rogue a striker?  Well if it has high single target damage, can't taunt, and can't heal then even though it is not called "x" it still has the properties of "x".
Prior to 4th classes did not have a role label this is true but did they not in fact actually have implicit roles?

More or less, the classes do have a built in concept of what they do in combat which defines some role for them.

The problem isn't in each class having some role in combat or even clearly spelling out what that function is. The fundamental problem with 4e roles came from trying to pare that list of roles down to 4 and forcing everything to fit into exactly 1 of those 4 things.

Even with the limited options available, Next is already more flexible then 4e. Take a look at Next's fighter, depending on what feats and maneuvers you have they can fill any of the 4e roles.

Prior to 4th classes did not have a role label this is true but did they not in fact actually have implicit roles?

More or less, the classes do have a built in concept of what they do in combat which defines some role for them.

Yes, roles were always there.  Fighters stood in the front forming a wall while clerics healed them while magic-users and the occasional archer hurled destruction over their heads and thieves variously got killed by traps or picked their allies pockets.  The roles weren't all that functional, thieves  in particular were pretty worthless, and the fighter role only worked while you were fighting in doorways and 10-by-10 corridors.  But they were quite real, from the beginning, a result of D&D growing out of Chainmail, which used wargame units as analogues for the various fantasy types, so fighting men played the same role as infantry and magic-users played the same role as artillery units.

The problem isn't in each class having some role in combat or even clearly spelling out what that function is. The fundamental problem with 4e roles came from trying to pare that list of roles down to 4 and forcing everything to fit into exactly 1 of those 4 things.

 If there was a mistake made with the roles, it was padding the list up to four with the controller.  Leader, Defender, and Striker roles are very clear, while the controller is harder to pin down.  

- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Prior to 4th classes did not have a role label this is true but did they not in fact actually have implicit roles?

More or less, the classes do have a built in concept of what they do in combat which defines some role for them.

The problem isn't in each class having some role in combat or even clearly spelling out what that function is. The fundamental problem with 4e roles came from trying to pare that list of roles down to 4 and forcing everything to fit into exactly 1 of those 4 things.

Even with the limited options available, Next is already more flexible then 4e. Take a look at Next's fighter, depending on what feats and maneuvers you have they can fill any of the 4e roles.



Umm...the 5e fighter can't really do leader or controller. IT can't even do defender all that well either.

That being said, I would prefer if subclass or build determined role.


A fighter (knight) may have some defender related abilities, while a fighter (weaponmaster) might have some damage dealing ones.  My issue with loose role and loose class distinctions is that you get a class that does everything or multiple roles too easily. Right now the 5e fighter is technically the best striker and best defender at the same time. Additionally, because his defender capabilities come from maneuvers it prevents the class from being a truly competent defender.

I would  rather have more distinction given to builds to prevent that and to help promote class identity.   
  Just like if the mechanics of 10 different classes were 10 different things but the end result was the same.


Like the kind of thing which can happen if you have no system of roles.


Roles didn't help 4e really. When the roles suited the class, it did help to define what a class was supposed to do and how it went about it.


I am fond of when there are multiple approaches to a given role... like how an Avenger achieves its striker capability different than the rogue. The 4 roles are overly simplistic...  but also more flexible after a very short time than those who picked the game up and put it down seem to think.


 The role system had substantial downside though. It limited classes to the narrow specific roles as defined in 4e, 4e never got a non-healing leader class because leader was defined by healing powers to large extent.


They could have probably named 3x as many roles... Sure but the obligatoriness and weight of being a healer in 4e is pretty low. I dont have to keep pumping resources in to it if I dont want.


 When classes where associated with the wrong role they played weirdly, fighter being pinned in defender when most people who play fighters are looking for a striker was the big one.



I played 1e the association with defender was quite real... it may have evolved in to more strikerishness because the class lacked good tools for its role. 4e gave the Fighter the tools implied back in AD&D, it wasnt a misfire at all from where I came frome.


They had to create the slayer later to fill that huge gap.


Not really there wasnt "a had to" a Two handed fighter is a more complex route and achieved better with direct numbers than the Slayer but you have to work at it.  Similarly the ranger as a martial class not a gishy nature spell caster really also had it covered...

 Classes that didn't neatly fit into their role where a problem also, giving all clerics healing powers is fine, but depending on type their natural secondary role could be striker, defender or controller and 4e didn't handle that aspect well.




Overly flexible individual characters is a problem not something to be sought after...  CoDzilla isnt just a question of Power but versatility as well. If you want a striker wizard its entirely doable they call them Warlocks and later Sorcerors too. Even a shielding swordmage can really be a Wizard (hybrid even and swap that sword with a Staff), though they should have made an Abjurer or something for a more directly.

NOT having roles makes class design messy you hunt for arbitrary mechanics to make classes distinct.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

In my opinion, due to the AEDU system actually makes classes more distinct, seeing as a player has up to four choices to make for his character each level. The wizard has always had that, but I want the fighter to have something like that in Next as well. My real problem is the way the developers just put "Combat Surge" or Ace in the Hole" into the higher level slots and called it a day. 
That is not logic. Why not design a system so ANY character class can have a multitude of choices per round?  Reminds me of the ol'  BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner video.



1.) They already have. 
2.) If you think - incorrectly - that the fighter has fewer options because they aren't hard-coded as spells or spell-like abilities, that's your problem, not the game's.
3.) If you honestly, honestly can't see how to enjoy the game unless those abilites are hard coded, as they are in the wizard class: PLAY A WIZARD.  Non-existant problem solved. 

That is logic.  Logic is not complaining that a bicycle can't turn because it doesn't have hard-coded turn signals like a car does.  The solution is certainly NOT to put turn-signals, an engine, and a battery to run them on the bike.  That would make it a car.

Overly flexible individual characters is a problem not something to be sought after...

That we are just going to have to disagree on. Usually when I'm playing a wizard I'm doing it exactly becasue I want a flexible character. That is the defining feature of a wizard to me, a warlock is just a magical energy blaster no matter what you call it, a wizard is the guy who can decide he wants to be a blaster one day and a leader the next.
NOT having roles makes class design messy you hunt for arbitrary mechanics to make classes distinct.

As opposed to 4e which had the same arbitary mechanics for many of the classes within each role. All leaders get healing, sneak attack/quarry/curse are just variations of the same thing, all defenders used some variation of mark until they added essentials and a couple of zone defenders.

In my opinion, due to the AEDU system actually makes classes more distinct, seeing as a player has up to four choices to make for his character each level. 


It makes individual characters more distinct.. its the type of abilities in that selection set which will keep the class distinct or not. In other words my fighter doesnt get ranged area effect attacks worth beans and that is pretty consistant nor does his selection set include elemental attacks (though historically tools of war actually included molotov cocktails/greek fire. and caltrops for instance which accomplish those effects).
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

  That is the defining feature of a wizard to me


Being completely indistinct has to require jack of all trades status... and sorry enabling MASTER of ALL TRADES is sucky game design....
CoDzilla I can do anything anyone else can do only better is not to be sought after.

If you are willing to suck at it you have paid for that versatility... otherwise drop it in an ash heap somewhere.

NOT having roles makes class design messy you hunt for arbitrary mechanics to make classes distinct.

As opposed to 4e which had the same arbitary mechanics for many of the classes within each role.




Arbitrarily different...ie different for the sake of itself not because the distinction serves a purpose.

Oh, and every mark was vastly different with that very minor overlap you make a big deal out of... the implications of a mark are its distinction and they were big.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Ace in the Hole and Combat Surge are both very cool and I hope they stay in the game. 

Now, what do clerics and wizards get past level 10? A single spell slot for levels 6, 7, 8 and 9. The weird thing is, when you do damage calculations, a 20th-level fighter using Combat Surge does as much damage as a 20th-level wizard casting a ninth-level spell.

Let's see... a level 20 fighter with a greatsword and 20 Strength can use his Combat Surge to attack twice and double his 6d6 MDD.
1d12+5+(6d6*2)+20+1d12+5 = 2d12+12d6+30 = 13+42+30 = 85 damage on average, with a nonmagical weapon.

To maximize single-target damage with a ninth-level wizard spell, you'd probably end up scaling up a lower-level spell (Since PW:K sucks in this iteration and Meteor Swarm does less damage with a huge area). Let's say Magic Missile: 18d4+36 = 45+36 = 81 damage on average, but it auto-hits. (And of course you could use a scaled-up Cloudkill or Fireball or something to hit a bunch more dudes for a bit less damage.)

So the actual damage output between a wizard using his max-level daily and a fighter doing the same is not that huge.

That same round of combat can, of course, be used in myriad other ways. Use Shove Away twice to knock an enemy off a bridge. Disarm an enemy and use your extra action to toss his weapon into a pit of lava. Run up to a fallen ally, administer a healing potion, carry him out of harm's way, and slay his attacker. And so on.

Ace in the Hole is one of the craziest abilities I've seen. You don't think four GUARANTEED skill checks of 20+ is going to work out well for a rogue under Bounded Accuracy? Think of what you can do for social interactions, or stealth, or tracking, or whatever.

Now, certainly, a wizard can use Move Earth and Astral Projection and Mass Invisibility and all sorts of really sweet spells. But when you look at the list and divvy them up, what do you get? There are currently 24 wizard spells above 5th level. 4 are multi-target damage spells (Chain Lightning, Sunbeam, Sunburst, Meteor Swarm). 5 are single-target Save-or-Die-But-Take-A-Ton-of-Damage-Regardless effects (Banishment, Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone, Finger of Death, and Power Word Kill). All of this is just a continuation of the stuff wizards have been doing for the first 10 levels of their careers, and all of it is fairly mechanically balanced against martial attacks (or easily can be).

Three more of the spells are just the wizard's opportunity to act as the group tour bus (Plane Shift, Astral Projection, Greater Teleport). The remaining half of the high-level wizard spells include some very cool things (Move Earth, Trap the Soul) but nothing that, to my mind, endangers the niches of martial characters. Even Mass Invisibility and Mass Suggestion have clear drawbacks compared to traditional stealth and persuasion (respectively). The outlier here is Wish, which is just as open-ended and crazy as ever, but the drawbacks of that spell are interesting enough that I still like it. 

Overall, I'd say that mechanically fighters and rogues don't really need anything extra to stay on par with spellcasters. I do hope, however, that the legacy system they've talked about introduces some more interesting exploration, social, and roleplaying options for them.
That is not logic. Why not design a system so ANY character class can have a multitude of choices per round?  Reminds me of the ol'  BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner video.



1.) They already have. 
2.) If you think - incorrectly - that the fighter has fewer options because they aren't hard-coded as spells or spell-like abilities, that's your problem, not the game's.
3.) If you honestly, honestly can't see how to enjoy the game unless those abilites are hard coded, as they are in the wizard class: PLAY A WIZARD.  Non-existant problem solved. 

That is logic.  Logic is not complaining that a bicycle can't turn because it doesn't have hard-coded turn signals like a car does.  The solution is certainly NOT to put turn-signals, an engine, and a battery to run them on the bike.  That would make it a car.




Might as well not give wizards spells by that same logic. They don't need hardcoded abilities either. What's the point of a game system if the players are making up all the rules?

False analogies are false. Claiming something is logical is not sufficient for it to be logical.

A class as a type can have common properties without members of that class being identical. For example the number 1.5 and 5 both belong to the set of real numbers yet each has distinct properties. A dog and a cat each has 4 legs, a tail, 2 ears, and fleas yet they are distinct animals. Sulfuric acid and water will both make you wet, I am sure most rational people would choose water over the acid though.

In other words just because subsets of a set share properties it does not follow that tey are identical and share all properties. AEDU worked very well as a framework. Why not extend unique mechanics to how hit points are tracked or saving throws are generate? 
 
Snip



That's a really good point, I may have been wrong about balance. 
Ace in the Hole and Combat Surge are both very cool and I hope they stay in the game. 

Now, what do clerics and wizards get past level 10? A single spell slot for levels 6, 7, 8 and 9. The weird thing is, when you do damage calculations, a 20th-level fighter using Combat Surge does as much damage as a 20th-level wizard casting a ninth-level spell.

Let's see... a level 20 fighter with a greatsword and 20 Strength can use his Combat Surge to attack twice and double his 6d6 MDD.
1d12+5+(6d6*2)+20+1d12+5 = 2d12+12d6+30 = 13+42+30 = 85 damage on average, with a nonmagical weapon.

To maximize single-target damage with a ninth-level wizard spell, you'd probably end up scaling up a lower-level spell (Since PW:K sucks in this iteration and Meteor Swarm does less damage with a huge area). Let's say Magic Missile: 18d4+36 = 45+36 = 81 damage on average, but it auto-hits. (And of course you could use a scaled-up Cloudkill or Fireball or something to hit a bunch more dudes for a bit less damage.)

So the actual damage output between a wizard using his max-level daily and a fighter doing the same is not that huge.

That same round of combat can, of course, be used in myriad other ways. Use Shove Away twice to knock an enemy off a bridge. Disarm an enemy and use your extra action to toss his weapon into a pit of lava. Run up to a fallen ally, administer a healing potion, carry him out of harm's way, and slay his attacker. And so on.

Ace in the Hole is one of the craziest abilities I've seen. You don't think four GUARANTEED skill checks of 20+ is going to work out well for a rogue under Bounded Accuracy? Think of what you can do for social interactions, or stealth, or tracking, or whatever.

Now, certainly, a wizard can use Move Earth and Astral Projection and Mass Invisibility and all sorts of really sweet spells. But when you look at the list and divvy them up, what do you get? There are currently 24 wizard spells above 5th level. 4 are multi-target damage spells (Chain Lightning, Sunbeam, Sunburst, Meteor Swarm). 5 are single-target Save-or-Die-But-Take-A-Ton-of-Damage-Regardless effects (Banishment, Disintegrate, Flesh to Stone, Finger of Death, and Power Word Kill). All of this is just a continuation of the stuff wizards have been doing for the first 10 levels of their careers, and all of it is fairly mechanically balanced against martial attacks (or easily can be).

Three more of the spells are just the wizard's opportunity to act as the group tour bus (Plane Shift, Astral Projection, Greater Teleport). The remaining half of the high-level wizard spells include some very cool things (Move Earth, Trap the Soul) but nothing that, to my mind, endangers the niches of martial characters. Even Mass Invisibility and Mass Suggestion have clear drawbacks compared to traditional stealth and persuasion (respectively). The outlier here is Wish, which is just as open-ended and crazy as ever, but the drawbacks of that spell are interesting enough that I still like it. 

Overall, I'd say that mechanically fighters and rogues don't really need anything extra to stay on par with spellcasters. I do hope, however, that the legacy system they've talked about introduces some more interesting exploration, social, and roleplaying options for them.





I am glad there are some people out there that see the truth in the "Wizard's are cool and everyone else sucks." debate. You add in saving throws and spell resistance and things get even less favorable.

I would like to see Fighters get more uses for their martial damage dice for the sake of narrative and flavor but I think we are moving in the right direction.

I'm with ClockWork.


Plus, you need to consider how easy it is to improvise spells: you can't. You can improvise a maneuver's effect, even if the system doesn't include effect dice and it really isn't that great you have the option. A wizard that doesn't mem teleport can't teleport. There is no way anyone can improvise something like that (though rituals do cover a little bit of this) and I don't see anyone calling for wizards or other casters to have all their spells be "Improved --" and just let all the spell effects be something everyone can try to do without the actual spell.


In a day-to-day, metagame kind of sense, the wizard is much more flexible than the fighter in that they can dramatically change their capabilities. However, if you really look at the options people want for fighters and martial combat, it's pretty clear to me that the fighter's got a much larger range of options within their milieu than the wizard could ever hope to have.

I can try do a suggestion about the "return" of 4th martial powers. 

1rs point: The martial tecniques are martial tricks, no ki powers.

2nd point: For me they are three types of martial powers.

- Surprise factor. Only can be done once each encounter. Surprise martial powers can´t be used for mindless enemies like oozes, vermins, contrucst and lots of undeads. But they can be used suddenly. Some tricks could need material components (for example throwing sand to the eyes). 

- First attack. Special attacks what need some time to get ready, it can´t be done suddenly. Practically only can be done once each encounter, because it need lot of time. 

- Overexertion. Once each encounter, and when I say once, I mean if a "overexertion" martial power is used... the body is too tired to do of other same type until after resting.


* Lots of martial tricks can be used without the "martial power" prequisite, only the martial powers does it better very much.  

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I can try do a suggestion about the "return" of 4th martial powers. 

1rs point: The martial tecniques are martial tricks, no ki powers.



Isn't that the idea MDD is supposed to express when it's looked at by the Rogue and Fighter and isn't Ki only expressed by the Monk (so far that is)?


2nd point: For me they are three types of martial powers.

- Surprise factor. Only can be done once each encounter. Surprise martial powers can´t be used for mindless enemies like oozes, vermins, contrucst and lots of undeads. But they can be used suddenly. Some tricks could need material components (for example throwing sand to the eyes). 

- First attack. Special attacks what need some time to get ready, it can´t be done suddenly. Practically only can be done once each encounter, because it need lot of time. 

- Overexertion. Once each encounter, and when I say once, I mean if a "overexertion" martial power is used... the body is too tired to do of other same type until after resting.



Were these to be implemented, you'd have to have devestating effects tied to them to compensate for the strict restrictions. Having such creatures immune to certain aspect of character's capabilities isn't, from my experience, a very good way to design PC options. It's one of the big reasons why a lot of people don't like Alignment-based spells/effects for example.

First Attack would need to have a strong, almost instant-death mechanic tied to it to justify "setting up" the maneuver. An assassin's death attack, for example, requires 3 rounds of consistant surveillance (plus not being noticied by the target) to function and that's 3 rounds of "boring" that the player now has to endure and not participate. Now something like using maneuvers to set up a BIGGER maneuver is something I'm more likely to enjoy.

Overexertion, again, would need a very strong and/or encounter-lasting effect to warrent the limitations put on the PC.  
It sounds to me like the OP just wants better descriptions for the fighter and rogue.

So we can have
Combat Surge: A flourish of multiple attacks, to a large creature does an extra 6d6 damage.
Juggernaught: Push your way through a wall of foes with an extra 6d6 damage.
etc.

:P

 
* Yes, it was the idea is supossed to be expressed, but I wanted emphasize it to be sure.


* I were thinking about the recycle or remake of 4th martial powers.

Rebember the mindless creatures can´t be surprised by PC´s abushs... martial tricks with the key "surprise factor" shoudn´t be different.


* The first attack isn´t really a good name, but it is about special attacks who need time to get ready, concentration is necesary. Really they can be used after the first attack but the character only can concentrate about a exclusive enemy. Mabye there are more enemies in the encounter, but PC must ignore them. 

For exaple a archer who is refining his aim to shoot the weakest point of enemy.

I imagine them like no-magic equivalent to 4th Ed once- encounte spells. 

* Overexertion tricks would be the old 4th Ed daily martial powers. And other ways could be used without be so strict limitations, for example barbarian rage could allow do two or more overexertion efforts, o by means of some magic potion (with secondary effects like minor poisons). 

(as matter of fact, the barbarian could be the specialist of using rage to do special attacts with they key overxertion).

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

It sounds to me like the OP just wants better descriptions for the fighter and rogue.

So we can have
Combat Surge: A flourish of multiple attacks, to a large creature does an extra 6d6 damage.
Juggernaught: Push your way through a wall of foes with an extra 6d6 damage.
etc.

:P

 



It's not descriptions, it's options. Gaining a level should be fun, but after 11th level, the fighter dosen't   get anything new.
And fighters need more options before 10th level. Just like wizards can specialize in traditons, or the cleric domains, there has to be more styles of fighting and more options should be added to the style as the fighter levels. You see examples of this by looking at the rogue as they have become more versatile.
Gaining a level should be fun, but after 11th level, the fighter dosen't   get anything new.


Yes they are !
Each time they get a new level of boring and a new level of suicidal stupidity for not developping fantasy adapted combat techniques.