A 1st-level Fighter is supposed to be better than the average person. That's why he's an adventurer, and a Fighter, and not a guy who stands around town with a spear leering at people all day.
Not in my games, he's not. :-P
This is exactly why I don't like RPGs that impose that kind of mechanic on you. They force you to see the PCs, even at level 1, as being already heroes. This suggests that you can only be a hero if you already have whatever gift adventurers have, and ordinary people must remain content to stand around town with a spear leering at people all day, because they don't have the special gift required to be an adventurer (yet somehow this hasn't led to a special "adventurer class" developing throughout society).
In my idea of RPGs, a level 1 fighter IS (or rather, starts out as) a person who stands around town with a spear, but he has made a decision to do something different. To me, that's what makes him a hero, not because he's better than everybody else but because he's willing to take the risks. This is why 4e doesn't work for me. I like the idea that everybody, even the town peasants, can potentially be heroes if they're willing to take the risks (and they are great risks, hence why not many people do it, and those who do and survive get rewarded for it).
Think about what a level 1 Fighter can do. In 2nd and 3rd, they start fresh out of the box at level 1 with the ability to wear plate mail. That alone requires a great deal of training to move and fight in properly. Further, a 2E Fighter, and other 2E warrior classes, are able to start with Specialization in not one, but two weapons. They know things about using Weapon XYZ that other people simply don't, and with Mastery waiting at level 3, they aren't too far off from being the among the best fighters in the region with that particular weapon. In 3E, a level 1 Fighter is competent with virtually every weapon short of something very specialized like a bastard sword, or particularly exotic like a double-sword. This is before he takes his first feats, mind you. If he takes Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave, he can literally kill a mob of basic militiamen surrounding him in one turn.
Next, think about what a level 1 player-character is up against. Goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, ogres, giant spiders, bears, gibberlings, kobolds, creatures that have, since birth, been surrounded by bloodshed, molded by it, into survivalist killing machines. Some of these guys can pull a human apart with their bare hands and teeth. It would be insane to think that some random guy can just decide to go out and fight against such odds unless he has lots of training, a brilliant intellect, or some spark that sets him apart from the rest of the shit-stained wretches that populate his village.
A level 1 Fighter is rookie Conan, or 20 year-old Drizzt, not Fred the Guard. In 3E, Fred the Guard is a level 1 Warrior, who likely only has a feat because he's human. In 4E, Fred's probably a minion, with 1 HP and fixed damage instead of dice when he hits. Admittedly, I don't know what the 'This Guy Is a Loser' rules are in 2E, but presumably, Fred isn't a Fighter there, either.
Think about what a level 1 Fighter can do. In 2nd and 3rd, they start fresh out of the box at level 1 with the ability to wear plate mail. That alone requires a great deal of training to move and fight in properly.
Actually, no it doesn't. It takes a bit of time to get used to having plates strapped to you, but that's all. People don't have to take a special training course to wear a harness. This mechanic is only included to stop everybody under the sun from wearing plate armour. Such a thing would be better served by imposing enough disadvantages to make it impractical for certain characters.
Next, think about what a level 1 player-character is up against. Goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, ogres, giant spiders, bears, gibberlings, kobolds, creatures that have, since birth, been surrounded by bloodshed, molded by it, into survivalist killing machines. Some of these guys can pull a human apart with their bare hands and teeth.
Goblins are practically a joke. These things are supposedly so dangerous, yet a level 1 party can defeat a whole warband of them with very little danger to themselves. :P
It would be insane to think that some random guy can just decide to go out and fight against such odds unless he has lots of training, a brilliant intellect, or some spark that sets him apart from the rest of the shit-stained wretches that populate his village.
A spark is one thing, I could probably deal with just a spark. In 4e, though, it's not so much as a spark, more a lightning bolt. I really don't like the 'minion' mechanic in 4e either.
Also, for the record, Drizzt is generally recognised as being one of the most Gary Stu type characters ever created in literature. :P
Well I ran my first 5e game last night, a one-off for a few mates using the first scenario in the starter box. Few thoughts:
*Combat is lethal at low levels. Thanks to finesse being baked into the weapon type rather than feat/class feature, a humble goblin effectively gets +2 to hit and damage with a scimitar or shortsword. They also get their dex bonus to damage with a bow. The party was undermanned so I let them start at level 2 and even still they came close to a tpk when only outnumbered 2-1.
@Squire Those "joke" Goblins can still do a lot of damage to a level 1 party with not overwhelming numbers, given they theoretically can one-shot anyone who isn't a Fighter and/or a Hill Dwarf, and have around a 50% chance of hitting anyone not in heavy armor. A community of commoners has a not-insignificant amount of fear from a warband.
*Advantage/Disadvantage is a great mechanic. After the first couple of fights, I could see my players doing everything they could to claim advantage in a fight and dreading the times they found themselves at disadvantage.
*1st level Spells: When a party decides to go all out, then they can do a fair amount of damage. Upon encountering the "boss", a Bugbear, in the surprise round the Cleric hit him with a Guiding Bolt and the Archer used the Advantage given to decisively hit him. End result, dead boss and free to go into initiative against two goblins and and wolf. If they'd had a full party, then the mooks probably wouldn't have survived the surprise round.
I'm not sure why anyone would call goblins and such 1st level creeps a joke either. DnD has always, all editions, been the most lethal at first level, where a single hit-or-miss from a mook can one-hit-kill most characters, and a lucky crit can kill everyone. And even if you don't get unlucky enough to suffer full damage from a weapon, you still don't enough HP to endure more than a few hits nor the healing power necessary to undo the damage.
I'm not sure why anyone would call goblins and such 1st level creeps a joke either. DnD has always, all editions, been the most lethal at first level, where a single hit-or-miss from a mook can one-hit-kill most characters, and a lucky crit can kill everyone. And even if you don't get unlucky enough to suffer full damage from a weapon, you still don't enough HP to endure more than a few hits nor the healing power necessary to undo the damage.
Almost, 4E gave first level characters enough HP at level 1 to survive two or three hits, and the second wind/healing surge mechanic effectively let you recover quickly enough to survive another. As a downside, it made every fight last for ages, as non-minion monsters had similar hit points.
In 5e, a Mage with Mage Armor or a high-Dex character in Leather is going to typically have an AC in the 14-15 range. That means a Goblin with +4 to hit is going to hit on average 45% of the time, for 5 or 6 points of damage on average. Looking at the starter kit characters, only the fighters and the cleric would have a chance to be still standing after a second average hit.
If you're talking commoners with stats in the 8-10 range, leather armor and shield, then a Goblin would be absolutely fearsome one-on-one against one of those.
I was actually referring to previous version goblins, not in 5e. It sounds like they've become a bit more dangerous, which is good, but in 3.5e they were only even remotely a threat at 1st level. Once you were 2nd level, they could pretty much be ignored. This is a fundamental part of what I dislike about D&D; the fact that you can actually reach a level where certain enemies can no longer even remotely challenge you anymore. I'd rather later monsters challenge you by doing different things, than just by having a crap-ton of HP.
The big problem was the levelling, and the HP bloat that came with it. If you rolled well, or if the GM let you take maximum HP as you level, you could end up with a stupid amount of hitpoints. I did hope that 5e would fix that, but they chose not to. In fact, 4e actually had the right idea there - a few more HP at 1st level, and a lower, fixed amount of HP as you level up. (although 30-odd at level 1 was a bit too much - somewhere between 10 and 20 would have been a reasonable amount to start with, I think)
I quite like the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic too, saves a lot of unnecessary number-crunching without being too OP.
As for finesse...this is actually a gripe I have long had with D&D. Weapons either rely completely 100% on strength, or completely 100% on dexterity. There is no in-between. In reality, dexterity plays easily as much of a role as strength when swinging any weapon, but D&D has never represented this properly.
Actually, no it doesn't. It takes a bit of time to get used to having plates strapped to you, but that's all. People don't have to take a special training course to wear a harness. This mechanic is only included to stop everybody under the sun from wearing plate armour. Such a thing would be better served by imposing enough disadvantages to make it impractical for certain characters.
Yes, actually, it does. You can't strap on an extra 30-50 pounds of weight directly to your body and move and fight in it normally. That takes training and practice, and that's part of why elite soldiers like knights had apprentices and squires, so those youths could learn things like wearing armor and not tripping over yourself.
Goblins are practically a joke. These things are supposedly so dangerous, yet a level 1 party can defeat a whole warband of them with very little danger to themselves. :P
Very little danger? A 3E character has at best like 14 HP, 2E more like 12, and can't afford plate mail right from the start. An individual goblin isn't much of a threat, but six or more goblins flanking and rolling six attack rolls means the law of averages is on the side of the goblins. This is just considering the math side of things, and not the goblins actually using strategy beyond flanking. Typically, the adventurers are the aggressors against the goblins' lair, which means the goblins could, especially if there's a hobgoblin giving them orders/pointers, be well prepared for brave fools.
Tucker's Kobolds. Look it up.
A spark is one thing, I could probably deal with just a spark. In 4e, though, it's not so much as a spark, more a lightning bolt. I really don't like the 'minion' mechanic in 4e either.
A peasant should generally need a lightning bolt to slay an ogre.
The minion mechanic is great. Rather than bog down a fight against a large number of enemies with HP, minions serve a unique role. Tearing through them is cathartic, but they can also, like goblins or kobolds, be the most grave threat in a well-wrought encounter.
Also, for the record, Drizzt is generally recognised as being one of the most Gary Stu type characters ever created in literature. :P
Which is why I said 20 year-old Drizzt, and not him at 60 or whatever he is when he's a full-fledged Ranger superhero. At one time, he was just a level 1 Fighter like most drow males.
A video game like BG has to rely on the game rules to combat munchkinism; but PnP shouldn't have to. Writing the rules with munchkins in mind basically gives in to munchkinism. Sounds like it's just as well I skipped 3e+. (It did after all give us the Blackguard, aka the Dumbest Thing Ever Conceived In Any Game Ever.)
Was just taking a look back through this thread and...what exactly is wrong with the Blackguard?
If you're talking commoners with stats in the 8-10 range, leather armor and shield, then a Goblin would be absolutely fearsome one-on-one against one of those.
The way I like to run things: almost nobody has stats of entirely 8-10. That is average overall for the stat, not the stat line of an average person. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. A farmer might have stats of 8-10 in most things, but would have above average strength and con. A tradesperson might have strength and dex of 12-14, while a merchant would have a charisma in the 14s but not much strength or dex, and an academic type would have an intelligence of 14. Even a nobleman isn't such because of his stats, but because of his birthrite, and access to money and education. Higher stats are extremes, and such people typically become celebrities - Arnold Schwarzenegger would have a strength of 18, while Albert Einstein would have an intelligence of 18.
Why do I like to do it like this? As I said, I don't like the idea that the PCs start out inherently better than everybody else. If you want to be a hero, you have to earn it, you don't just get high stats handed to you on a plate, and look down upon everybody who wasn't lucky enough to have high stats handed to them on a plate and who must content themselves with shovelling dirt and speaking in Cornish accents for their entire lives, because the PC wizard is physically stronger than the village bailiff.
If you're talking commoners with stats in the 8-10 range, leather armor and shield, then a Goblin would be absolutely fearsome one-on-one against one of those.
The way I like to run things: almost nobody has stats of entirely 8-10. That is average overall for the stat, not the stat line of an average person. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. A farmer might have stats of 8-10 in most things, but would have above average strength and con. A tradesperson might have strength and dex of 12-14, while a merchant would have a charisma in the 14s but not much strength or dex, and an academic type would have an intelligence of 14. Even a nobleman isn't such because of his stats, but because of his birthrite, and access to money and education. Higher stats are extremes, and such people typically become celebrities - Arnold Schwarzenegger would have a strength of 18, while Albert Einstein would have an intelligence of 18.
Why do I like to do it like this? As I said, I don't like the idea that the PCs start out inherently better than everybody else. If you want to be a hero, you have to earn it, you don't just get high stats handed to you on a plate, and look down upon everybody who wasn't lucky enough to have high stats handed to them on a plate and who must content themselves with shovelling dirt and speaking in Cornish accents for their entire lives, because the PC wizard is physically stronger than the village bailiff.
Nobody said they just get handed those stats, except maybe people who are simply born smart or with a magnetic personality. As I said, a 1st level Fighter isn't just some guy who picked up a sword. He's an army veteran, or an experienced street tough or bodyguard. He starts out knowing how to wear heavy armor and wield a bunch of weapons. He earned his 16-18 strength through training and his past, non-adventuring experiences. This is true of every edition.
If a 1st level fighter is a veteran, what's a 20th level fighter? :P
I prefer to have 1st level characters be at, or near, the bottom of their respective fields, and choose to leave it behind for whatever reason. I'd rather have local town guards be level 1 fighters, while the better ones are level 4 or 5, and the veterans are level 8.
Otherwise, if at 1st level you're already a veteran fighter, and from there you're only going to be better than every other soldier around, why are you not the one in charge of the garrison? Why are you even bothering to obey the town's laws when nobody can hope to apprehend you, and you can easily defeat the entire King's personal bodyguard?
Also, it makes more sense from a multiclassing perspective if level 1 was a basic, elementary understanding of the class. Otherwise, a few months of "looking over somebody's shoulder" will make you better than those who have spent many years locked in the tower studying hard.
If a 1st level fighter is a veteran, what's a 20th level fighter? :P
I prefer to have 1st level characters be at, or near, the bottom of their respective fields, and choose to leave it behind for whatever reason. I'd rather have local town guards be level 1 fighters, while the better ones are level 4 or 5, and the veterans are level 8.
Otherwise, if at 1st level you're already a veteran fighter, and from there you're only going to be better than every other soldier around, why are you not the one in charge of the garrison? Why are you even bothering to obey the town's laws when nobody can hope to apprehend you, and you can easily defeat the entire King's personal bodyguard?
Also, it makes more sense from a multiclassing perspective if level 1 was a basic, elementary understanding of the class. Otherwise, a few months of "looking over somebody's shoulder" will make you better than those who have spent many years locked in the tower studying hard.
I said that a 1st level Fighter is an "army veteran," not necessarily a veteran of the Fighter class. As in, he's completed some kind of tour of duty, not necessarily that he's the best warrior in the army. Maybe he was out fighting border skirmishes for a year, or just came back from a war. He's fought men in bloody conflicts, but is new to facing down giants and magical traps. He's a bit of a badass, being so competent with virtually every weapon and armor that isn't exotic, but is still new to the adventuring game. He bothers to obey the town's laws because while most of the town guard probably don't have Fighter levels, the captain probably does, and his lieutenants might, and they outnumber the fighter five to one. He can't defeat the King's personal bodyguard, because that guy probably has several Fighter levels, and maybe a level or two of a prestige class.
There's nothing basic or elementary about being able to wear virtually any armor and wield virtually any weapon. Nobody is equally as skilled with a halberd as they are with a longsword on Day One. The Fighter had to earn that, in the process of going from Level 0 to Level 1, so to speak.
I can accept "bodyguard" or "street tough", or even "mercenary" or "town bailiff", but not "veteran soldier", because "veteran" implies a high level of skill and experience. You seem to be treating army soldiers as made up entirely of peasant levvies (a 1st level fighter would be above those, I agree). I'm assuming a higher level of skill and experience for professional soldiers (i.e. the ones who actually make a career out of fighting).
Adventurers can't be so far above everybody else that the rest of the world pales in the shadow of their own awesomeness because, for me, that breaks the world, especially when somebody who has spent his entire life picking pockets or playing music in taverns can suddenly achieve the same level of competence in a matter of months. I'm not a fan of Conan - I don't like these hero fantasy tales of "this one man was so awesome that he *insert poorly contrived fight coreography* and killed, like, 20 guys at the same time!", so I don't really support the idea that every PC fighter has the right to emulate this.
Luckily, D&D3e (and hopefully 5e as well) can be adapted to support both styles of play. ;-)
I dislike to make this about semantics, but that's really not what "veteran" means to me. In my mind, it definitely does not "imply a high level of skill and experience", it just means you've served in an army. Even a petty border conflict between to barons would suffice.
Adventurers can't be so far above everybody else that the rest of the world pales in the shadow of their own awesomeness because, for me, that breaks the world, especially when somebody who has spent his entire life picking pockets or playing music in taverns can suddenly achieve the same level of competence in a matter of months. I'm not a fan of Conan - I don't like these hero fantasy tales of "this one man was so awesome that he *insert poorly contrived fight coreography* and killed, like, 20 guys at the same time!", so I don't really support the idea that every PC fighter has the right to emulate this.
Luckily, D&D3e (and hopefully 5e as well) can be adapted to support both styles of play. ;-)
I know (if I remember correctly) that you've said you prefer other systems - like warhammer - for this very reason, and I agree with that sentiment. I don't think it's really all that possible to achieve in any DnD edition, though - the mechanics doesn't really support it. It's not particularly the kind of mindset DnD was made to be played by, and it shows through the overall design.
As for 5th Edition, I'll be happy to let you know that a level 1 Fighter is so inefficient and unskilled that they don't know any combat manoeuvres or strategies beyond "hit baddie with ouchie thing", like partying, counter-attacking, tripping, or disarming them, or causing/provoking openings in their defense. The bad news, however, is that no, they'll never learn these basics of combat unless he takes the "Battle-Master" specialization. But hey, on level five you learn how to hit your enemies with the ouchie-stick twice! And what else is there to martial arts anyway, you know?
I can accept "bodyguard" or "street tough", or even "mercenary" or "town bailiff", but not "veteran soldier", because "veteran" implies a high level of skill and experience. You seem to be treating army soldiers as made up entirely of peasant levvies (a 1st level fighter would be above those, I agree). I'm assuming a higher level of skill and experience for professional soldiers (i.e. the ones who actually make a career out of fighting).
People who make a career out of fighting aren't necessarily great at it. Most professional soldiers simply are not Fighters. In most games, there are somewhat weaker classes tailored to NPCs such as this, like 3E's Warrior which is pretty competent but gets no Bonus Feats and has less HP, or the Non-Heroic class in Star Wars Saga Edition which can start with any 3 Feats for which the character qualifies but doesn't gain any Bonus Feats or Talents. Your basic Stormtrooper, for instance, has 4 Non-Heroic levels, which is enough to make him a reasonable fight for Saga Edition's Fighter equivalent, the Soldier.
As @scriver said, "veteran" does not imply that at all. A veteran has been through a tour of duty or fought in a war or border skirmishes. She has experience, but not necessarily earth-shattering skill. She has enough experience that she can wield virtually any weapon she can get her hands on with competence, and likewise for virtually any suit of armor. I can't overstate how sorely you are underestimating the gravity of the Fighter's starting proficiencies. This is a character who is just as competent with the dagger as she is with a greatsword, with leather armor as she is with full plate. All simple weapons, all martial weapons, all armor. That's huge. To the Rogue, plate mail might as well be an alien device, likewise for the Cleric to the greatsword.
Adventurers can't be so far above everybody else that the rest of the world pales in the shadow of their own awesomeness because, for me, that breaks the world, especially when somebody who has spent his entire life picking pockets or playing music in taverns can suddenly achieve the same level of competence in a matter of months. I'm not a fan of Conan - I don't like these hero fantasy tales of "this one man was so awesome that he *insert poorly contrived fight coreography* and killed, like, 20 guys at the same time!", so I don't really support the idea that every PC fighter has the right to emulate this.
Luckily, D&D3e (and hopefully 5e as well) can be adapted to support both styles of play. ;-)
Well, I suppose it's good that you don't like that. I never said a first-level Fighter was any of that. Conan wasn't any of that at first-level, either. Theoretically, he could probably Great Cleave through a bunch of those 20 guys each turn, but there's twenty of them, all rolling attack rolls, and even if they suck one's probably going to get a crit, with a battleaxe. Dead Conan. There's a reason they run away from the bad guys most of the time in the Conan movie. There's a ton of them, all with decent gear, and some of them actually have Fighter or Rogue levels. I never said a 1st level Fighter was a superhero, but somebody who can punch a giant python to death is clearly leaps and bounds above a peasant.
To use real-world analogies, a level 1 Fighter is a Marine fresh out bootcamp and ready for his first tour. He knows his way around multiple combat techniques and is simply better prepared for battle than say a Warrior (the 3E NPC class) whose training is more akin to that found in a Militia or Law Enforcement agency.
Even a first-level fighter would do well to be careful around giant pythons anyway, with their poison and powerful coils.
I've posted about this elsewhere (and I had to re-read this thread to make sure I'm not repeating myself again), but the way I view characters is this:
You're not fully trained until level 5. At first level, you're a cadet, a rookie at whatever it is you've decided to do with your life. If you're a martial artist, you're a white-belt. If you're a wizard, you're an apprentice. Those first few levels are what determine the kind of professional you're going to be in your chosen field. Wizards choose a specialization and a niche of spells to focus on, fighters specialize in a specific weapon, priests begin to master combat healing. By the time you reach level 5, you've got a figurative Bachelor's Degree in whatever you do.
Player characters and talented NPCs take those levels in the PC classes like Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue; most NPCs take those levels in lesser classes like Warrior, Adept, Expert, or Noble. But even a level 5 noble is skilled in their chosen field, whether it's levying taxes from the population or making a case at the senate for better road repair. No one starts out as an expert in their field, and the first few levels represent that journey.
Once you reach level 5, though, and from then until level 10, you're further honing your craft through real-world experience. For adventurers that means going on quests; for people living in town it means working a job, meeting people, starting a family. A level 10 Warrior is different from a level 10 Fighter because they're going on different kinds of "quests". The fighter is slaying dragons; the warrior is breaking up tavern brawls and filling out paper-work.
By level 10, you're a master of your focus; you've gone from Med Student to MD, from just-graduated-from-college to just-finished-a-master's-thesis, from finishing-a-tour-of-duty to earning-medals-and-rising-through-the-ranks-of-the-military. The vast majority of people in the world (any world, real or fantasy) settle down when they hit level 10, and don't gain any levels after that. Most people are content to be family doctors or general surgeons or police officers.
That's where the player characters and important NPCs start to rise above the crowd. They're going on larger-scale adventures, taking on age-old grudges with powerful enemies, researching spells that alter the fabric of the universe or bridge the gaps between planes. The rare NPC is discovering new methods of smithing weapons and armor, inventing devices to revolutionize the city's plumbing, forging peace treaties between nations that have been at war for centuries.
Everything from level 11 to level 20 is legendary, the sort of feats that will eventually earn a character, heroic or mundane, a place in the history books. At level 20, no one will ever forget who you were or what you did, because your accomplishments are that notorious.
@Dee This seems pretty accurate. I like it. Also, you basically described the Heroic (1-10) and Paragon (11-20) level tiers, so I wholeheartedly approve of that!
I know (if I remember correctly) that you've said you prefer other systems - like warhammer - for this very reason, and I agree with that sentiment. I don't think it's really all that possible to achieve in any DnD edition, though - the mechanics doesn't really support it. It's not particularly the kind of mindset DnD was made to be played by, and it shows through the overall design.
That's true, D&D isn't really designed for that style of play, but it can be made to support it with some tweaking - for example, take a goblin and give him a fighter level and suddenly he's a lot more dangerous. *evilgrin* And yes, Warhammer FRP is currently my favourite system out there, I just love the gritty brutality of it and the way you never become ridiculously powerful - even at higher levels a bunch of goblins can't be completely ignored.
But hey, on level five you learn how to hit your enemies with the ouchie-stick twice! And what else is there to martial arts anyway, you know?
Ah, but Europeans have no knowledge of martial arts, remember? They just hit things with no skill and hope they bleed to death first...yeah, that's totally how Talhoffer and Fiore etc taught people to fight. ;-)
Actually, in an early release, they introduced a mechanic called "Expertise Dice" - fighters could spend one of these a turn to either add to their to-hit chance, do extra damage, or even parry an attack (i.e. negate some of the damage done to them). It did look like an interesting mechanic, but it seems to have been dropped for some reason.
@Dee This seems pretty accurate. I like it. Also, you basically described the Heroic (1-10) and Paragon (11-20) level tiers, so I wholeheartedly approve of that!
I like the sound of that too, although I don't approve of you using 4th edition terminology. ;-p (j/k! I know, they're just words
Ah, but Europeans have no knowledge of martial arts, remember? They just hit things with no skill and hope they bleed to death first...yeah, that's totally how Talhoffer and Fiore etc taught people to fight. ;-)
Actually, in an early release, they introduced a mechanic called "Expertise Dice" - fighters could spend one of these a turn to either add to their to-hit chance, do extra damage, or even parry an attack (i.e. negate some of the damage done to them). It did look like an interesting mechanic, but it seems to have been dropped for some reason.
Part of why I'm not so hype about 5E. They're trying so hard to appease fans on non-4th editions, but they clearly also want to include some of the modern design philosophy that made 4E great, like making non-magical classes more dynamic and exciting to play. At first, the Fighter was pretty vanilla. He hit stuff. Then, at level two, he could Cleave, still kinda hum-drum. Then, a later playtest gave Fighters access to a bunch of maneuvers and such, a la 4E, but now that appears to have been trimmed back considerably. 5E has been a big exercise in wishy-washiness, and it is exhausting.
Ah, but Europeans have no knowledge of martial arts, remember? They just hit things with no skill and hope they bleed to death first...yeah, that's totally how Talhoffer and Fiore etc taught people to fight. ;-)
Actually, in an early release, they introduced a mechanic called "Expertise Dice" - fighters could spend one of these a turn to either add to their to-hit chance, do extra damage, or even parry an attack (i.e. negate some of the damage done to them). It did look like an interesting mechanic, but it seems to have been dropped for some reason.
Part of why I'm not so hype about 5E. They're trying so hard to appease fans on non-4th editions, but they clearly also want to include some of the modern design philosophy that made 4E great, like making non-magical classes more dynamic and exciting to play. At first, the Fighter was pretty vanilla. He hit stuff. Then, at level two, he could Cleave, still kinda hum-drum. Then, a later playtest gave Fighters access to a bunch of maneuvers and such, a la 4E, but now that appears to have been trimmed back considerably. 5E has been a big exercise in wishy-washiness, and it is exhausting.
My guess is the advanced maneuvers will be included as "Advanced Rules" variants that players can elect to use or not at the DM's option. They've said a number of times that their goal is to have a Basic set of rules that anyone can learn quickly, and then offer options for more advanced players to add granularity to their games.
@Dee This seems pretty accurate. I like it. Also, you basically described the Heroic (1-10) and Paragon (11-20) level tiers, so I wholeheartedly approve of that!
1-5=beginner, like dee said, 6-10=experienced but unexceptional,11-15=expert, many years of experience, top of the profession, 16-20=household name.
Comments
Next, think about what a level 1 player-character is up against. Goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, ogres, giant spiders, bears, gibberlings, kobolds, creatures that have, since birth, been surrounded by bloodshed, molded by it, into survivalist killing machines. Some of these guys can pull a human apart with their bare hands and teeth. It would be insane to think that some random guy can just decide to go out and fight against such odds unless he has lots of training, a brilliant intellect, or some spark that sets him apart from the rest of the shit-stained wretches that populate his village.
A level 1 Fighter is rookie Conan, or 20 year-old Drizzt, not Fred the Guard. In 3E, Fred the Guard is a level 1 Warrior, who likely only has a feat because he's human. In 4E, Fred's probably a minion, with 1 HP and fixed damage instead of dice when he hits. Admittedly, I don't know what the 'This Guy Is a Loser' rules are in 2E, but presumably, Fred isn't a Fighter there, either.
Also, for the record, Drizzt is generally recognised as being one of the most Gary Stu type characters ever created in literature. :P
*Combat is lethal at low levels. Thanks to finesse being baked into the weapon type rather than feat/class feature, a humble goblin effectively gets +2 to hit and damage with a scimitar or shortsword. They also get their dex bonus to damage with a bow. The party was undermanned so I let them start at level 2 and even still they came close to a tpk when only outnumbered 2-1.
@Squire Those "joke" Goblins can still do a lot of damage to a level 1 party with not overwhelming numbers, given they theoretically can one-shot anyone who isn't a Fighter and/or a Hill Dwarf, and have around a 50% chance of hitting anyone not in heavy armor. A community of commoners has a not-insignificant amount of fear from a warband.
*Advantage/Disadvantage is a great mechanic. After the first couple of fights, I could see my players doing everything they could to claim advantage in a fight and dreading the times they found themselves at disadvantage.
*1st level Spells: When a party decides to go all out, then they can do a fair amount of damage. Upon encountering the "boss", a Bugbear, in the surprise round the Cleric hit him with a Guiding Bolt and the Archer used the Advantage given to decisively hit him. End result, dead boss and free to go into initiative against two goblins and and wolf. If they'd had a full party, then the mooks probably wouldn't have survived the surprise round.
In 5e, a Mage with Mage Armor or a high-Dex character in Leather is going to typically have an AC in the 14-15 range. That means a Goblin with +4 to hit is going to hit on average 45% of the time, for 5 or 6 points of damage on average. Looking at the starter kit characters, only the fighters and the cleric would have a chance to be still standing after a second average hit.
If you're talking commoners with stats in the 8-10 range, leather armor and shield, then a Goblin would be absolutely fearsome one-on-one against one of those.
The big problem was the levelling, and the HP bloat that came with it. If you rolled well, or if the GM let you take maximum HP as you level, you could end up with a stupid amount of hitpoints. I did hope that 5e would fix that, but they chose not to. In fact, 4e actually had the right idea there - a few more HP at 1st level, and a lower, fixed amount of HP as you level up. (although 30-odd at level 1 was a bit too much - somewhere between 10 and 20 would have been a reasonable amount to start with, I think)
I quite like the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic too, saves a lot of unnecessary number-crunching without being too OP.
As for finesse...this is actually a gripe I have long had with D&D. Weapons either rely completely 100% on strength, or completely 100% on dexterity. There is no in-between. In reality, dexterity plays easily as much of a role as strength when swinging any weapon, but D&D has never represented this properly.
Tucker's Kobolds. Look it up. A peasant should generally need a lightning bolt to slay an ogre.
The minion mechanic is great. Rather than bog down a fight against a large number of enemies with HP, minions serve a unique role. Tearing through them is cathartic, but they can also, like goblins or kobolds, be the most grave threat in a well-wrought encounter. Which is why I said 20 year-old Drizzt, and not him at 60 or whatever he is when he's a full-fledged Ranger superhero. At one time, he was just a level 1 Fighter like most drow males.
Why do I like to do it like this? As I said, I don't like the idea that the PCs start out inherently better than everybody else. If you want to be a hero, you have to earn it, you don't just get high stats handed to you on a plate, and look down upon everybody who wasn't lucky enough to have high stats handed to them on a plate and who must content themselves with shovelling dirt and speaking in Cornish accents for their entire lives, because the PC wizard is physically stronger than the village bailiff.
Source
The excerpt features the full stat block for the Androsphinx. Thoughts?
I prefer to have 1st level characters be at, or near, the bottom of their respective fields, and choose to leave it behind for whatever reason. I'd rather have local town guards be level 1 fighters, while the better ones are level 4 or 5, and the veterans are level 8.
Otherwise, if at 1st level you're already a veteran fighter, and from there you're only going to be better than every other soldier around, why are you not the one in charge of the garrison? Why are you even bothering to obey the town's laws when nobody can hope to apprehend you, and you can easily defeat the entire King's personal bodyguard?
Also, it makes more sense from a multiclassing perspective if level 1 was a basic, elementary understanding of the class. Otherwise, a few months of "looking over somebody's shoulder" will make you better than those who have spent many years locked in the tower studying hard.
There's nothing basic or elementary about being able to wear virtually any armor and wield virtually any weapon. Nobody is equally as skilled with a halberd as they are with a longsword on Day One. The Fighter had to earn that, in the process of going from Level 0 to Level 1, so to speak.
Adventurers can't be so far above everybody else that the rest of the world pales in the shadow of their own awesomeness because, for me, that breaks the world, especially when somebody who has spent his entire life picking pockets or playing music in taverns can suddenly achieve the same level of competence in a matter of months. I'm not a fan of Conan - I don't like these hero fantasy tales of "this one man was so awesome that he *insert poorly contrived fight coreography* and killed, like, 20 guys at the same time!", so I don't really support the idea that every PC fighter has the right to emulate this.
Luckily, D&D3e (and hopefully 5e as well) can be adapted to support both styles of play. ;-)
As for 5th Edition, I'll be happy to let you know that a level 1 Fighter is so inefficient and unskilled that they don't know any combat manoeuvres or strategies beyond "hit baddie with ouchie thing", like partying, counter-attacking, tripping, or disarming them, or causing/provoking openings in their defense. The bad news, however, is that no, they'll never learn these basics of combat unless he takes the "Battle-Master" specialization. But hey, on level five you learn how to hit your enemies with the ouchie-stick twice! And what else is there to martial arts anyway, you know?
People who make a career out of fighting aren't necessarily great at it. Most professional soldiers simply are not Fighters. In most games, there are somewhat weaker classes tailored to NPCs such as this, like 3E's Warrior which is pretty competent but gets no Bonus Feats and has less HP, or the Non-Heroic class in Star Wars Saga Edition which can start with any 3 Feats for which the character qualifies but doesn't gain any Bonus Feats or Talents. Your basic Stormtrooper, for instance, has 4 Non-Heroic levels, which is enough to make him a reasonable fight for Saga Edition's Fighter equivalent, the Soldier.
As @scriver said, "veteran" does not imply that at all. A veteran has been through a tour of duty or fought in a war or border skirmishes. She has experience, but not necessarily earth-shattering skill. She has enough experience that she can wield virtually any weapon she can get her hands on with competence, and likewise for virtually any suit of armor. I can't overstate how sorely you are underestimating the gravity of the Fighter's starting proficiencies. This is a character who is just as competent with the dagger as she is with a greatsword, with leather armor as she is with full plate. All simple weapons, all martial weapons, all armor. That's huge. To the Rogue, plate mail might as well be an alien device, likewise for the Cleric to the greatsword. Well, I suppose it's good that you don't like that. I never said a first-level Fighter was any of that. Conan wasn't any of that at first-level, either. Theoretically, he could probably Great Cleave through a bunch of those 20 guys each turn, but there's twenty of them, all rolling attack rolls, and even if they suck one's probably going to get a crit, with a battleaxe. Dead Conan. There's a reason they run away from the bad guys most of the time in the Conan movie. There's a ton of them, all with decent gear, and some of them actually have Fighter or Rogue levels. I never said a 1st level Fighter was a superhero, but somebody who can punch a giant python to death is clearly leaps and bounds above a peasant.
I've posted about this elsewhere (and I had to re-read this thread to make sure I'm not repeating myself again), but the way I view characters is this:
You're not fully trained until level 5. At first level, you're a cadet, a rookie at whatever it is you've decided to do with your life. If you're a martial artist, you're a white-belt. If you're a wizard, you're an apprentice. Those first few levels are what determine the kind of professional you're going to be in your chosen field. Wizards choose a specialization and a niche of spells to focus on, fighters specialize in a specific weapon, priests begin to master combat healing. By the time you reach level 5, you've got a figurative Bachelor's Degree in whatever you do.
Player characters and talented NPCs take those levels in the PC classes like Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue; most NPCs take those levels in lesser classes like Warrior, Adept, Expert, or Noble. But even a level 5 noble is skilled in their chosen field, whether it's levying taxes from the population or making a case at the senate for better road repair. No one starts out as an expert in their field, and the first few levels represent that journey.
Once you reach level 5, though, and from then until level 10, you're further honing your craft through real-world experience. For adventurers that means going on quests; for people living in town it means working a job, meeting people, starting a family. A level 10 Warrior is different from a level 10 Fighter because they're going on different kinds of "quests". The fighter is slaying dragons; the warrior is breaking up tavern brawls and filling out paper-work.
By level 10, you're a master of your focus; you've gone from Med Student to MD, from just-graduated-from-college to just-finished-a-master's-thesis, from finishing-a-tour-of-duty to earning-medals-and-rising-through-the-ranks-of-the-military. The vast majority of people in the world (any world, real or fantasy) settle down when they hit level 10, and don't gain any levels after that. Most people are content to be family doctors or general surgeons or police officers.
That's where the player characters and important NPCs start to rise above the crowd. They're going on larger-scale adventures, taking on age-old grudges with powerful enemies, researching spells that alter the fabric of the universe or bridge the gaps between planes. The rare NPC is discovering new methods of smithing weapons and armor, inventing devices to revolutionize the city's plumbing, forging peace treaties between nations that have been at war for centuries.
Everything from level 11 to level 20 is legendary, the sort of feats that will eventually earn a character, heroic or mundane, a place in the history books. At level 20, no one will ever forget who you were or what you did, because your accomplishments are that notorious.
That's how I see it, anyway.
This seems pretty accurate. I like it. Also, you basically described the Heroic (1-10) and Paragon (11-20) level tiers, so I wholeheartedly approve of that!
@Walstafa
That sounds about right, too.
Actually, in an early release, they introduced a mechanic called "Expertise Dice" - fighters could spend one of these a turn to either add to their to-hit chance, do extra damage, or even parry an attack (i.e. negate some of the damage done to them). It did look like an interesting mechanic, but it seems to have been dropped for some reason. I like the sound of that too, although I don't approve of you using 4th edition terminology. ;-p (j/k! I know, they're just words