Abstraction, fighters, and multiple attacks

 As I work on the long-delayed playtest draft of Goblins & Greatswords, I've been pondering the combat system, specifically as it relates to fighter-type characters. 

Fighters, as combat specialists, should naturally be more effective in combat. In most editions of D&D, this manifests primarily in terms of being able to use any weapon or armor, higher hit points, and better chances "to hit." Since combat is abstract, though, a single attack roll doesn't represent a single swing, but rather the sum of everything a combatant does in a round. It could mean one good solid blow among a lot of feinting and parrying, or it could mean a couple glancing slashes with your weapon, an opportunistic head-butt, and a kick to the knee. Fighters should be better able to perceive and capitalize on these opportunities, and so, in my opinion, should have the potential to do more damage per round.

Of course, better attack rolls do accomplish that, but the effect is overall rather trivial. A fighter who has an attack roll 4 points better than the cleric will do, on average, 20% more damage per round over the course of a fight.

AD&D gives the fighter a boost with multiple attacks, which are not only somewhat abstraction-breaking but also rather clunky in their execution. In order to avoid huge jumps in damage potential, there are "half steps" -- 3 attacks per 2 rounds and 5 attacks per 3 rounds, which means you have to remember whether you attacked once or twice last round.

Basic D&D of the BECMI line has multiple attacks at level 12 and above if the fighter can hit his target with a roll of 2, which is also quite wonky in my opinion, as well as having enormous stretches of little or no improvement followed by big sudden jumps. Also, I and many others would consider a campaign somewhat broken if PCs are regularly hitting foes 19 times in 20.

What I'm thinking of instead is to tie extra damage to the attack roll itself. At certain levels, a fighter gains the potential to roll an extra damage die for whatever weapon he's using if his attack roll is "x" higher than the minimum needed. Say, at character level 4, if the attack roll 4 or more higher than needed, an extra damage die is rolled. At level 8, a roll 8 or more higher than needed gets a third die, and at level 12, a roll 12 or more higher than needed gets a fourth die. These are only examples; you could tweak the levels and the thresholds for additional damage dice as desired. You could also grant other classes similar benefits at larger level jumps, e.g. maybe at 5th and 10th or 6th and 12th, or you could even give them at the same levels as fighters, relying on their poorer attack roll progression to make the benefits kick in less frequently.

In this scheme, armor never becomes obsolete as it tends to do at high levels in D&D. Even if a relatively low number is needed to hit at all, having better armor may keep the attack from surpassing the required roll for one or more extra damage dice, which is a fairly big deal. 

Additionally, you could allow the player to apply the extra dice to other opponents within range, so long as the attack roll is good enough to hit them at the required threshold -- easy to judge if he's fighting a gang of monsters with the same AC, and only marginally more complex in a mixed group. 

I'm thinking of applying this not only to characters, but also to monsters which traditionally have multiple attacks. Instead of an owlbear rolling three attacks for 1d8 damage, it rolls once, doing 1d8 on a basic hit, 2d8 on a roll 4 higher than needed, 3d8 on 8 higher, and in any case, the extra 2d8 "hug" on a natural 20. A giant who normally does 4d6 could have its damage broken down into d6 increments, easily wiping out several lesser opponents with a single good attack roll.

Obviously, more analysis and some play-testing are in order, but I'm cautiously optimistic about this method.

Ten fighter archetypes

The fighter class is good at fighting, but there are a lot of different ways to approach that job.  All of these archetypes may exist comfortably within the rules of whatever iteration of classic D&D or its clones one might favor, from OD&D to Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition and all points in between, without need for fiddly subclasses.  It's all in how you equip and play them.

1. The foot soldier:  The standard no-nonsense fighting man, unburdened with silly notions of chivalry or showmanship, practical in choice of weapons and armor.  May or may not have an actual military background.
2. The archer:  Capable with a blade, but prefers to take down foes from a distance.  Light armor allows the mobility to maintain that distance.  A bow, preferably long, is a must, with dagger and short sword or axe as side arms. 
3. The swashbuckler:  Dashing, daring, and flamboyant in attire as well as fighting style, the swashbuckler favors light armor and graceful blades.  Bulky or crude weapons like axes and maces are right out.  If there's anything in the swashbuckler's off-hand, it's likely either a buckler shield or a main gauche.
4. The barbarian:  A warrior from a culture considered backward or uncivilized.  Superstitious, uneducated, and uncouth by "civilized" standards.  Usually prefers hard-hitting weapons over finesse, hide or leather armor with a hide buckler, and clothing of furs and leather.
5. The brawler:  All the gusto of the swashbuckler with none of the finesse.  Rude, crude, and always spoiling for a fight, be it with fists, chairs, maces, or swords.  Quite likely he extends this gusto to all other things that he considers to be worth doing at all: food, drink, women (or men, as the case may be), singing, boasting...  He isn't picky about his equipment, but prefers things with impact, like battle axes and clubs, and disdains "sissy" weapons like rapiers and whips.
6. The hunter:  Learned his fighting chops against bears and boars rather than enemy soldiers or fencing partners.  At home in the wild, the hunter likes leather armor and spears, bows, and hand axes as weapons.
7. The gallant:  It's all about honor and chivalry for this fighter, whether he's a knight, a squire, or a peasant with big dreams.  The sword is his talisman as well as his weapon of choice, and he'll acquire plate mail, a lance, and a trusty steed as soon as possible.
8. The coward:  Curiously keen to avoid combat and has a thousand face-saving (or so he thinks) excuses to get out of dangerous duties.  He really does know how to fight, though: Back him into a corner and he's as dangerous as any fighter, or maybe more so if he fights dirty when he's scared.
9. The sailor:  Formerly a member of a pirate crew or a guard on a merchant ship.  Uncomfortable in anything heavier than a brigandine jack, with a likely fondness for cutlasses, daggers, and clubs.
10. The black knight:  He's not necessarily evil, but definitely no ray of sunshine either.  Intimidation is his stock in trade; he tends to be taciturn, grim, and glowering.  His armor is dark and menacing, his weapons wickedly curved, barbed, and flanged.  He isn't particularly quick to start a fight, but once battle is joined he is a ruthless combatant.

The lightly armored adventurer

The fighter in plate armor is probably one of the most enduring tropes in D&D, and fantasy in general.  The rules of the game are sometimes derided for a perceived bias toward heavily armored fighters, and all manner of "fixes" have been tacked on to rectify things.  Sub-classes with special perks for going unarmored or lightly armored and arbitrary AC bonuses to make swashbucklers and barbarians the equal of their ironclad brethren are a common addition to the rules.  There are probably, quite literally, dozens of iterations of those classes and others like them, both official and homebrew, floating around out there.  Other times, gamers resort to cheesy Monty Haul assortments of magic items in their attempts at fighter parity - rings, bracers, and robes of protection, +5 leather armor, and so on.

In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too.   I think that's a mistake, based upon a mistaken perception.  With apologies to Errol Flynn and Conan aficionados, from a purely combat-oriented perspective, the fighter in plate is, and ought to be, superior.  In a straight-up, toe-to-toe melee combat, the lightly armored swashbuckler and the barbarian in his furry speedo are not the equal of the armored knight.   All the energy used by the lightly armored fighter in his flurry of parrying and nimble evasion may indeed look cool, but that's energy and attention that the armored knight need not expend just to keep from being skewered.  His passive defense, in the form of armor, allows him to focus more of his active attention on hitting and dealing damage. Between combatants of similar skill and experience, the armored knight is always the odds-on favorite.  That's as it should be.

Well then, what's the point of playing a swashbuckler or a barbarian? fans of those archetypes might ask.  They have a historical and a literary tradition behind them, and they're interesting from a role-playing perspective, but the rules give them the shaft!

In point of fact, though, it isn't the rules that give them the shaft.  It's the focus of a particular game or campaign.  In a game that heavily emphasizes combat, the traditional melee tank owns the field.  Again, that's as it should be - if combat is your emphasis.  There are plenty of situations, though, when heavy armor is either not useful, or a hindrance, and playing up those scenarios a little makes the lightly armored fighter or cleric a viable character.

Polite Society

One of the primary factors in the rise of swashbuckler and duelist-type fighters was not the effectiveness of fighting unarmored, but social reasons.  Besides being uncomfortable and noisy, it might be a serious faux pas to go stalking around town in plate or mail.  The overall effect would be not unlike that of making a trip to the shopping mall with a shotgun over your shoulder - it looks like you're looking to start trouble.  It frightens the peasantry and arouses the suspicion (at least) of the guard and the local ruler.  Going unarmored or discreetly armored and wearing a dagger, short sword, or rapier or carrying a quarterstaff is a better choice for the adventurer who wants to be dashing and prepared rather than seen as a violent brute or a paranoid cad.  For adventures in urban settings, or the king's palace, a character wearing plate is going to be at a decided disadvantage.

Exploration

Armor is great when you get into a fight, but for crawling about the dark depths of a dungeon or the wide wilderness, it can be quite a drag.

Time:  Reduced movement rates are the most obvious handicap of heavily armored characters.  Consider a lightly encumbered party with a movement rate of 120' per turn, vs. one with one or more characters in plate moving at 60' per turn.  That's twice as long to explore 120' of dungeon corridor, and twice as many rolls for wandering monsters.

Fleeing or pursuing:  If you want to run down a fleeing opponent, it helps if you're not carrying thirty pounds of metal wrapped around your body.  And when you're fleeing from a combat that's too tough, well...the magic-user doesn't have to outrun the owl bear.  He just has to outrun the fighter in plate.

Stealth and surprise:  It's hard to sneak up on someone if you're clanking and jingling with every step.  The standard chances for surprise - 2 in 6 - assume a typical party with typical equipment.  If everyone goes in light armor, that could be bumped up to 3 in 6.  Perhaps the chances of wandering monsters might be reduced as well.

Climbing, swimming, etc.:  It should be nigh impossible to swim in metal armor, and it's not very good for scrambling over heaps of rubble, up or down cliffs and embankments, and into or out of pits and sinkholes either.  Bogs and swamps are hazardous places, but even more so in armor.  Full plate or mail in the desert or jungle is practically begging for heat stroke.  That isn't to say that things can't be done in armor, but they may be more hazardous, make more noise, take longer, etc.  Some places may be inaccessible, or nearly so, to heavily encumbered characters.  (This obviously works best in a sandbox-style game, where there are no "plot essential" events or locations, only places that the PCs will have to come back to properly equipped if they wish to explore them.)

Carrying loot:  It almost goes without saying that if you're lugging armor, it subtracts from your ability to lug gold and gems.

Skirmish combat:  As I've already remarked, in a toe-to-toe fight, an armored fighter has a clear advantage, but there are tactical reasons to favor mobility over the protection of armor.  Missile combatants, for instance, might find it more advantageous to use their unencumbered movement rate to stay out of melee altogether, and trust to cover for protection.  A superior movement rate may be an advantage in cornering or surrounding a group of enemies.  A fighter with a 40' per round movement rate can reach a beleaguered comrade 40' away in half the time it takes one with a 20' per round move to get there.

Conclusion

Once again, this is not to force any character not to wear plate mail, but merely to point out that there is, or at least should be, a downside as well as an upside to it.  Does this diminish the special class advantages of the fighter and cleric?  I say no.  The thief and the magic-user are forced to use the light or no armor strategy.  The fighter and the cleric can choose freely between heavy armor and light armor as the adventure demands. They can equip for stealth, exploration, and society, but the mage and thief can't deck themselves out for a melee-intensive grind.  The ability to wear armor or not to is part of the fighter's versatility.

Tricking out swashbucklers and barbarians with AC bonuses and special abilities doesn't make them even with a traditional fighter; in a balanced campaign in which exploration and social adventures are on an even footing with combat, it gives them the unfair advantage.