Magic in D&D from the perspective of a relatively new player.

[Speaker]

Hi there, I'm Speaker and I just recently got into D&D.

My first experience with D&D was in a 4e session. I've only ever played one session of D&D and I enjoyed it. I was a Dragonborn Monk/Fighter thing an I was like a master of AoE, it was pretty cool.Unfortunately I was unable to continue the campaign and stuff due to some unforeseen circumstances. I heard that 5e was coming out so I did a lot of research on 3.5/PF/4e in preparation on what to expect from the way DMs should act to character builds, I tried to be as prepared as I could. something I always saw throughout my time researching was the complaining about martial peeps were weaker than their magical counter parts, which I never saw in 4e because while my friend could turn invisible, I was a whirlwind of death flipping around and punching goblins and what not. After some research I saw the complaints were...genuine. I blame Vancian magic as a game mechanic.

Vancian magic imo creates this false idea that some spells need to be OP because you have limited spell slots. Like "It's okay for a Wizard to bend reality because he can only do it once or twice!" Never mind that some of these spells are encounter breaking. In almost every major fantasy world I've seen, those that can do magic can usually use it as many times as they want or can, given the have enough energy so why is magic not an instant problem solver? Well because they aren't reality benders. Could you imagine a world, even a fictional one, where wizards are straight up gods? Even in the Bartimaeus books where wizards were pretty much the ruling class because of the powers they wielded couldn't do half the stuff the wizards in DnD could. Even Gandalf the quintessential fantasy wizard would get **** on by a 20th level Wizard and he was a god. The fact people even advocate for a game with features like this is beyond me.

When discussion about class balance comes up it usually ends up with people saying that fighters should be buffed or wizards should be nerfed. I like the latter. Limiting what magic can do and not the magicians themselves is imo the best thing for D&D. Even 5e with reduced spell slots still allows for casters to do reality bending nonsense but if you let fighters do cool/almost magical stuff then all of a sudden 'it breaks the feel of the game'. If you're going to make wizards reality benders then at least make fighters Ichigo from Bleach or Monks Goku from DBZ. If I can't at least shoot death rays from my sword while you can teleport miles away and transform into the strongest magical creatures why would I even want to go on an adventure?

Anyways that's how I feel about 5e and D&D in general.

[pikeamus]

Eh, many people like magic to be seriously magical and distinct from mundane options. 3e was the most popular D&D for a reason.

In 4th edition you had first level rogues blinding a crowd of enemies, all at once, with a hand crossbow. And then those enemies get better again in a turn or two. It's fun in a game, but makes no sense at all if you like roleplay games as stories because it makes no sence as a real interaction.

Speaking of stories, I think you need to expand your reading a bit if you think limited but powerful spell casting is a rare thing. Hell, the word "Vancian" comes from Jack Vance and his Dying Earth stories, where spells were most definitely encounter breaking.

If you like 4e style, then by all means play 4e. If you like the 3e mechanics but want to pull the power level down, try e6. There's plenty to pick from.

[Yuki Akuma]

Eh, many people like magic to be seriously magical and distinct from mundane options. 3e was the most popular D&D for a reason.

And that reason was that it was the first edition that was released when the Internet was popular.

[pikeamus]

And that reason was that it was the first edition that was released when the Internet was popular.

I'm inclined to "eh" again. There were lots of reasons I suppose. I almost removed that line before posting but was feeling slightly too lazy and just hit the submit buttom instead.

[Inevitability]

I like this. Wizards being toned down is indeed the best option of the two, because it gets silly quickly when you try to bring fighters to their level. I don't see someone charming others, stopping time or creating things out of nowhere without having at least a little magic.

4e's solution to wizards being gods and fighters being trash was maybe not the most elegant, but it got the job done. 5e's solution means that fighters are now a viable class and wizards are demigods instead of gods. I am not sure which solution I like more.


In 4th edition you had first level rogues blinding a crowd of enemies, all at once, with a hand crossbow. And then those enemies get better again in a turn or two. It's fun in a game, but makes no sense at all if you like roleplay games as stories because it makes no sence as a real interaction.

Ugh, comments like these really make me wonder if the people who posted them even played 4e. The power just gives you the mechanics, and it is up to the player to decide what the fluff is. Maybe the enemies are just afraid for another attack and are averting their eyes. Maybe you just hit them above the head and the running blood is filling their eyes. The possibilities are endless when you stop thinking about 'blinded' as: 'ZOMG I'M BLIND I HAVE NO EYEZ ANYMORE'. Heck, you could even strip the condition 'blinded' of its default fluff and call it 'hampered' or 'panicked'.

[obryn]

Hey, Speaker!

I agree with your basic point. It's at least better in 5e than it has been in most other editions, but there's a definite power shift back towards full spellcasters.

[Dimcair]

*Even Gandalf the quintessential fantasy wizard would get **** on by a 20th level Wizard and he was a god.

This forum already concluded that gandalf was far away from level 20. Neither was he a wizard.


More to the point: Why dont you play a spellcaster? What makes you go (enter classthatmovesrollsd20tohitendsturn) here?

[pikeamus]

snip

Ugh, comments like these really make me wonder if the people who posted them even played 4e. The power just gives you the mechanics, and it is up to the player to decide what the fluff is. Maybe the enemies are just afraid for another attack and are averting their eyes. Maybe you just hit them above the head and the running blood is filling their eyes. The possibilities are endless when you stop thinking about 'blinded' as: 'ZOMG I'M BLIND I HAVE NO EYEZ ANYMORE'. Heck, you could even strip the condition 'blinded' of its default fluff and call it 'hampered' or 'panicked'.

No need to be rude. When 4e came out I switched to it and never played a game of 3e again. You must admit though that the rogue power I refer to there was just ridiculous, for the close blast part as much as for the blinded part. Disassociated mechanics bother many people, and some instances test the boundries even for people that enjoyed the system.

[Seppo87]

If you're going to make wizards reality benders then at least make fighters Ichigo from Bleach or Monks Goku from DBZ
All of my Yes.

The game should allow for power to scale from average human to demigod, but it should do so proportionately.

[Falka]

All of my Yes.

The game should allow for power to scale from average human to demigod, but it should do so proportionately.

I wonder why people try to translate their shonen stuff to western fantasy games all the time.

DnD's most popular editions never intended to feel shonen-y at all. There's nothing wrong with being mundane. It leads to interesting stories, with characters that have weaknesses, get dirty and shat on multiple times and develop a sense of collaboration that is irrelevant for most manga protagonists (which are based in the capability of the protagonist to do anything - ME, ME, ME, ME)

I think OP is trying to ask that a game should have some qualities that don't belong to it in the first place.

4e is based around democracy of power for the group. Check its popularity. By no means I'm trying to say it's a bad game - I played it for 5 years and had a lot of books. I enjoyed it a lot. But in the same sense, I never expected a gritty game when I played 4e, because it's not made for that.

[Seppo87]

4E is unpopular because it abandoned simulationism, not because it's balanced.

Main issues were with fluff being percieved as inadequately represented by mechanics.

A balanced game is still a top priority for a lot of people, and that's why E6 and other homebrews are so popular.

[obryn]

More to the point: Why dont you play a spellcaster? What makes you go (enter classthatmovesrollsd20tohitendsturn) here?
I don't think "Play a spellcaster" is a great response to, "I want an interesting and powerful weapon-using character."

[Speaker]

Speaking of stories, I think you need to expand your reading a bit if you think limited but powerful spell casting is a rare thing. Hell, the word "Vancian" comes from Jack Vance and his Dying Earth stories, where spells were most definitely encounter breaking.

Oh I know whee the word Vancian comes from, I'm just saying as a game mechanic it's so unbalanced. It's like if D&D said all rogues were based of the myth of ninjas where they could turn invisible at will, fly and walk on water and saying that's okay because it comes from stories. I've never read any f the Dying Earth books but were there actually mundanes there that didn't cower in fear from the might of a wizard?



4e's solution to wizards being gods and fighters being trash was maybe not the most elegant, but it got the job done. 5e's solution means that fighters are now a viable class and wizards are demigods instead of gods. I am not sure which solution I like more.

I don't mind wizards being gods but if that's the case make mundanes demi-gods at level 20. Make them like Achilles, Kratos, Neo in the matrix or Hercules or something.



This forum already concluded that gandalf was far away from level 20. Neither was he a wizard.


More to the point: Why don't you play a spellcaster? What makes you go (enter classthatmovesrollsd20tohitendsturn) here?

Gandalf wasn't a wizard? Yeah of course he wasn't level 20, he'd just teleport to mordor if he was.

Spell casters aren't really my cup of tea because I like the idea of a normal human doing spectacular things. Not spectacular person doing impossible things.


All of my Yes.

The game should allow for power to scale from average human to demigod, but it should do so proportionately.

That's what I'm saying, that if you don't want the magicians toned down, make the mundanes have the the ability to gain near mythical status through leveling.


I wonder why people try to translate their shonen stuff to western fantasy games all the time.

DnD's most popular editions never intended to feel shonen-y at all. There's nothing wrong with being mundane. It leads to interesting stories, with characters that have weaknesses, get dirty and shat on multiple times and develop a sense of collaboration that is irrelevant for most manga protagonists (which are based in the capability of the protagonist to do anything - ME, ME, ME, ME)

I'm not particularly calling for everyone to be the next Naruto or something but to say there's nothing wrong being a mundane in world where you need magic to succeed is kind of silly imo. The casters actually have the ability to do almost anything or things close to that so how does it not become a game centered around the caster? Do you know how hard a DM would have to work to make casters in his group not break the encounter entirely at the 20th level without dropping anti-magic fields in every nook and cranny of the world? So at the end of the day which is all about me me me me? Unless the DM just dropped a truck load of magic items on the mundanes they will never be as good as the casters or even close.

[Dimcair]

I don't think "Play a spellcaster" is a great response to, "I want an interesting and powerful weapon-using character."

I did not say that.
I asked why he does not want to play a spellcaster.
There is a difference.
Something must attract him to certain character concepts. I wonder if he just had to play with an (lets call it) unfixed polymorph and other spells or if he just wants to do everything the wizard does + wear armor and behead people. I can also imagine it to be a faulty group dynamic/powerlevel.

For my part I am just so soo bored if I need to have a character who just moves, rolls to hit and deals/deals not damage. Sure, you do not need to prepare the right spells at the right time, you don't need to find clever uses for illusions and suggestions, you are not challenged on a more intellectual level (not to say that running up to people and hitting them isn't intellectual). However, I need to add that I just stay clear from beastshape and polymorph to avoid people feeling useless. But that is a problem in your group and not of the game itself.

So what is the appeal for OP to stick with a very basic class if his groupmates are playing on a higher level?

[Dimcair]

Gandalf wasn't a wizard? Yeah of course he wasn't level 20, he'd just teleport to mordor if he was.



You obviously don't get it. I think you can find out more in this old thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?323529-Aragorn-Was-A-Fifth-Level-Ranger-Yadda-Yadda&highlight=Aragorn+was)

[TripleD]

I've never read any f the Dying Earth books but were there actually mundanes there that didn't cower in fear from the might of a wizard?


Yes. It didn't end well for them.

Vancian casting works in the books much like in the game. In fact, the books go into greater depth as to how magic actually works. Basically, magic is sentient energy whose fundamental particles are self-aware. When a wizard casts a spell, he's basically giving a task to these particles, which they then accomplish. That's why a wizard can cast "knock" without knowing anything about locks. Basically as long as the "magic" can figure something out, the spell caster can remain ignorant.

The thing the game left out is that preparing a spell is HARD. In the game a "wizard's laboratory" simply gives a passive bonus. In the books, without a workspace, you can't make anything but the most basic spells. A wizard has to manipulate magic in the same way a scientist manipulates photons or chemical bonds. What's more, each spell could take months to prepare, so wizards tended to stockpile them.

Oh, and while D&D has always been vague on how, exactly, a wizard stores spells, the books were quite clear: IOUN stones. Without these stones, which wizards jealously guarded from each other, you couldn't save a spell until later. These things weren't easy to come by either. In fact, in "Rhialto the Marvelous" it's revealed that the only way to create a stone is in the centre of a dying star.

So what keeps the wizards in check? Largely each other. In the books there are only 16 wizards, and they're all kind of *******s. Not explicitly mean, but not really concerned with anything beyond their own research or comfort. In theory they could take over the world, but frankly they don't care enough about the world to bother with it much. In their communities (if they bother interacting at all) they occupy a sort of "landed gentry" position.

So the real problem is that they took all of the great parts of Vancian casting (phenomenal, reality-bending power) but took out the drawbacks (long preparation, material components, limited ability to store spells, other guys to keep you in check, etc.).

[Speaker]

Yes. It didn't end well for them.

Vancian casting works in the books much like in the game. In fact, the books go into greater depth as to how magic actually works. Basically, magic is sentient energy whose fundamental particles are self-aware. When a wizard casts a spell, he's basically giving a task to these particles, which they then accomplish. That's why a wizard can cast "knock" without knowing anything about locks. Basically as long as the "magic" can figure something out, the spell caster can remain ignorant.

The thing the game left out is that preparing a spell is HARD. In the game a "wizard's laboratory" simply gives a passive bonus. In the books, without a workspace, you can't make anything but the most basic spells. A wizard has to manipulate magic in the same way a scientist manipulates photons or chemical bonds. What's more, each spell could take months to prepare, so wizards tended to stockpile them.

Oh, and while D&D has always been vague on how, exactly, a wizard stores spells, the books were quite clear: IOUN stones. Without these stones, which wizards jealously guarded from each other, you couldn't save a spell until later. These things weren't easy to come by either. In fact, in "Rhialto the Marvelous" it's revealed that the only way to create a stone is in the centre of a dying star.

So what keeps the wizards in check? Largely each other. In the books there are only 16 wizards, and they're all kind of *******s. Not explicitly mean, but not really concerned with anything beyond their own research or comfort. In theory they could take over the world, but frankly they don't care enough about the world to bother with it much. In their communities (if they bother interacting at all) they occupy a sort of "landed gentry" position.

So the real problem is that they took all of the great parts of Vancian casting (phenomenal, reality-bending power) but took out the drawbacks (long preparation, material components, limited ability to store spells, other guys to keep you in check, etc.).

So would it be the job of the DM to put limits on magic or do you think that's something WoTC should do? I mean I'm of the opinion that the game designers are the ones who should balance their own games. It seems to me when they try people just complain about not being able to break the game.

[obryn]

I did not say that.
I asked why he does not want to play a spellcaster.
There is a difference.
Something must attract him to certain character concepts. I wonder if he just had to play with an (lets call it) unfixed polymorph and other spells or if he just wants to do everything the wizard does + wear armor and behead people. I can also imagine it to be a faulty group dynamic/powerlevel.

For my part I am just so soo bored if I need to have a character who just moves, rolls to hit and deals/deals not damage. Sure, you do not need to prepare the right spells at the right time, you don't need to find clever uses for illusions and suggestions, you are not challenged on a more intellectual level (not to say that running up to people and hitting them isn't intellectual). However, I need to add that I just stay clear from beastshape and polymorph to avoid people feeling useless. But that is a problem in your group and not of the game itself.

So what is the appeal for OP to stick with a very basic class if his groupmates are playing on a higher level?
I'm still not sure we're communicating right. I agree, a character who just moves and rolls attacks is boring. But there should be a way to make a weapon-user who does significantly more than that.

[hawklost]

I'm still not sure we're communicating right. I agree, a character who just moves and rolls attacks is boring. But there should be a way to make a weapon-user who does significantly more than that.

No character in the game is limited to that. Every character can do far more than that. They can grab or trip. They can stand in front to stop movement. They can RP a taunt. They can do anything the DM and player can agree on.

Just not everything is written out in the rules. (And it shouldn't be, since no matter how many things you can think of for combat rules, I and many hundred of others will come up with something that you didn't think of). If you tried to only allow what is written in the books, you are limiting yourself from any imagination for combat.

[obryn]

No character in the game is limited to that. Every character can do far more than that. They can grab or trip. They can stand in front to stop movement. They can RP a taunt. They can do anything the DM and player can agree on.

Just not everything is written out in the rules. (And it shouldn't be, since no matter how many things you can think of for combat rules, I and many hundred of others will come up with something that you didn't think of). If you tried to only allow what is written in the books, you are limiting yourself from any imagination for combat.
The problem is the degree of fiat, as it's always been. You can always RP and improvise, and those should always be options. But just like casting a spell imposes your will onto the game's environment, martial fiat abilities should do similar. "I cast Hold Person. These guys need to make a save vs. spell or be paralyzed" and "I use my Stunning Blow maneuver; he needs to make a Con save or be stunned," are both high fiat. On the other side of the coin is the low-fiat example, "I am going to try and hit the dude on the head really hard; can I try to stun him?" Fiat abilities put the control of that in the hands of the player. It's not a substitute for improvisation or vice-versa.

I don't think we'd get much traction with a D&D game where the spell list disappears and magic boils down to "Eh, just roleplay it and do whatever you and the DM agree on." :smallsmile:

[Fwiffo86]

I don't think we'd get much traction with a D&D game where the spell list disappears and magic boils down to "Eh, just roleplay it and do whatever you and the DM agree on." :smallsmile:

What about Mage: the Ascension?

That entire magic system was based on "whatever you and the DM agrees with"?

I suppose it could work, but by 20th, you have mages seriously breaking reality without some sort of counterbalance. Paradox (or something similar) was super effective in reigning in what the Wiz's could do.

[Inevitability]

No need to be rude. When 4e came out I switched to it and never played a game of 3e again. You must admit though that the rogue power I refer to there was just ridiculous, for the close blast part as much as for the blinded part. Disassociated mechanics bother many people, and some instances test the boundries even for people that enjoyed the system.

I didn't mean to be rude, and apologize if I sounded rude. And no, I do not admit that power is ridiculous. There are a ton of explanations for how it works, and I can't see why the 'close blast' part is ridiculous. And do not give me all those reasons on how an attack should not be constrained to a square area, because if we go that way I've a couple of square fireballs who'd like to talk to you.

[Person_Man]

What about Mage: the Ascension?

That entire magic system was based on "whatever you and the DM agrees with"?

I suppose it could work, but by 20th, you have mages seriously breaking reality without some sort of counterbalance. Paradox (or something similar) was super effective in reigning in what the Wiz's could do.

Mage: The Ascension has the best Narrative magic system I've ever read in my life. It's not really "whatever you and the DM agree with." It's Consensus Reality (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Consensus). The basic concept is that everyone on the planet has the ability to alter reality with their beliefs, but most people (Sleepers) buy into the static scientific based consensus of the Technocracy. Awakened people (including virtually all players) know this is a lie, and can manipulate reality in various ways and to various degrees. But if someone who doesn't agree with your conception of reality witnesses you using magic in a vulgar way ("How did that person just shoot a lightning bolt out of their hands!") Paradox can occur (which can cause all sorts of terrible things to happen).

This leads to all sorts of interesting situations, where players have hugely interesting open ended magical powers, but they can only use them secretly or in creative ways that don't cause Paradox ("Oh, there's a camera crew following him around, I guess its just a special effect."). Also, the Technocracy also has all sorts of powers and hunts and kills anyone who challenges their version of reality.

It's really, really awesome and fun to play. But it is a completely different experience then playing D&D, and does not lend itself at all to standard dungeon exploration/roleplaying/combat challenges. ("Look, a gelatnous cube! Well its not a sentient creature an no one else is watching us right now. I use my Life magic to turn it into water. Ok. Now what's in the next room.")

[hawklost]

snip

It's really, really awesome and fun to play. But it is a completely different experience then playing D&D, and does not lend itself at all to standard dungeon exploration/roleplaying/combat challenges. ("Look, a gelatnous cube! Well its not a sentient creature an no one else is watching us right now. I use my Life magic to turn it into water. Ok. Now what's in the next room.")

No, but the same idea can partially lend itself to.

"Look, the Gelatnous cube is standing in a puddle of water but I don't want to get close, DM, can I use Shocking Grasp to strike it from 10 feet away by touching the water?" DM: Hmmmmmm, I can see that working.... (Bzzzt.... did you notice you were also in the puddle mr Wizard? :smallbiggrin:)"

"Look, the Gelatnous cube is under that unstable area we passed. I am going to cast Thunderwave and see if the sound will collapse it. DM: I like it, we shall see if it works"

Both of those effects are not directly written out in the spells, so technically they are impossible to do. But at the same time, they are effects the spell might be able to do, based on their descriptions and fluff and the DM can decide to allow it if they wanted.

[TripleD]

So would it be the job of the DM to put limits on magic or do you think that's something WoTC should do? I mean I'm of the opinion that the game designers are the ones who should balance their own games. It seems to me when they try people just complain about not being able to break the game.

Honestly? I think it's 90% the developers job, and about 10% the DM's job to craft a scenario where the players can win, but only if they're clever.

[rlc]

So what is the appeal for OP to stick with a very basic class if his groupmates are playing on a higher level?
That's kind of the point. Mundane characters shouldn't have to be basic compared to a magic user who can literally bend time and space.

[obryn]

"Look, the Gelatnous cube is under that unstable area we passed. I am going to cast Thunderwave and see if the sound will collapse it. DM: I like it, we shall see if it works"

Both of those effects are not directly written out in the spells, so technically they are impossible to do. But at the same time, they are effects the spell might be able to do, based on their descriptions and fluff and the DM can decide to allow it if they wanted.
And this is another problem with saying, "Well, sword-slingers can always ask the DM for stunts!" At the end of the day, their stunts can't make a thunderburst or electricity. Their stunts are all "stuff with a sword," and I'm pretty sure "I want to one-shot the gelatinous cube by piercing its membrane" won't fly.

It's the same issues 3.x had with the martial/magic divide, in other words.

[hawklost]

And this is another problem with saying, "Well, sword-slingers can always ask the DM for stunts!" At the end of the day, their stunts can't make a thunderburst or electricity. Their stunts are all "stuff with a sword," and I'm pretty sure "I want to one-shot the gelatinous cube by piercing its membrane" won't fly.

It's the same issues 3.x had with the martial/magic divide, in other words.

so you claim a Caster can One Shot a Gelatinous Cube.... would like to see which spell you will use on it for that. (And what level Caster you are having to use that will take it out)

Really? Can't do any effects that the Casters can do?

hmmmm

I guess asking the DM If the rogue can jump off the balcony, grab the Chandler and cause it to collapse onto the enemies below looks nothing like a spell but it could still be considered a Burst damage effect that does damage to enemies below (depending on the size of the Chandler)

I guess the fighter saying "I want to run my sword against the stone wall to cause sparks since there is oil on the ground" and cause a wave of fire isn't exactly a Fireball or a Burning hands but it still flames enemies from afar if the DM allows it.

I guess a Fighter striking an enemy directly in front of him and then using a Kick (as a shove action) doesn't mean a huge thunderwave was caused but it has the same effect assuming his attack and shove succeed. Heck, the Player could say he yells loudly at that moment and call it his ThunderShout for fun.

Heck, if the player RPs it correctly some DMs would allow something like taking a swigg of Alcohol and using a torch to do a flame attack. Could effectively be the same as Burning hands in that case (assuming DM thinks its worth it).

There are an infinite number of things that a Mundane (And casters of course) can do that don't require magic. You just have to use your imagination, your charisma and have a good DM who likes Roleplaying more than Rollplaying and you can do awesome effects.

[obryn]

There are an infinite number of things that a Mundane (And casters of course) can do that don't require magic. You just have to use your imagination, your charisma and have a good DM who likes Roleplaying more than Rollplaying and you can do awesome effects.
This has all been possible in every edition. And yes, by definition, a martial character's improvisation is limited to mundane means, while a caster's improv is mundane + creative spell effects. I could draw a venn diagram if it would help.

This is not a game feature.

Stunting is good. Stunting is awesome, frankly. But it's not a viable replacement for a robust system of martial fiat abilities. It should be in addition to those.

Also, the Rollplaying vs. Roleplaying thing is tired.

[Falka]

I'm not particularly calling for everyone to be the next Naruto or something but to say there's nothing wrong being a mundane in world where you need magic to succeed is kind of silly imo. The casters actually have the ability to do almost anything or things close to that so how does it not become a game centered around the caster? Do you know how hard a DM would have to work to make casters in his group not break the encounter entirely at the 20th level without dropping anti-magic fields in every nook and cranny of the world? So at the end of the day which is all about me me me me? Unless the DM just dropped a truck load of magic items on the mundanes they will never be as good as the casters or even close.

Define succeeding.

Because for many people it means a lot of different things. For me, it means that you're able to achieve plot objectives and face challenges that are apropriate to your level.

If by succeeding, you mean that your character should become a murderhobo that kills gods using his fists (Kratos), then I think we're in totally different planes.

D&D is magic dependent in the sense that everything that tries to "break" reality must be explained through the use of a magic feature.

The problem is, perhaps, for players like yourself who must want to feel in "control" and "winning" (I'm not by any means saying that's bad or anything, but from what I read it sounds like your preference), maybe the problem is the game itself, not that it's wrong.

Mundanes may appear to "suck" because if they want to do something really extraordinary, they either need: a) a magic item. b) the help of a spellcaster. c) DM fiat.

The fact Wizards can no longer spam-craft magic items and there are no magic WallMarts, alongside with a substantial reduction of the caster's slots has helped toning down this divergence in 5e. Martial classes got also seriously buffed: Fighters are the sole class with 4 attacks per turn, they get tons of options to customize, etc. Barbarians are the only class that can reach 24 in a stat without magic items.

That there is some divergence regarding versatility: I won't deny the obvious and say it doesn't exist - but hey, if the only thing you've learned through 20 class levels is to swing a sword really hard and to take a lot of punishment, while the other guy has spent 20 levels studying the fabrics of reality, you can't seriously blame him for being at least a tad more versatile, right?

In other games, martial classes are more Wuxia-like and can afford being dumb as a stick while being also extraordinary and in some ways, inhumane.

In D&D however, you either know some magic, or you're at a certain disadvantage. It's just the paradigm of the world. People are not protagonists, you are not per se extraordinary if you don't learn extraordinary stuff (magic). And even so, some classes hace certainly a couple of extraordinary feats that make them less 'mundane' (Evasion). Hence why many classes have spells. It's like someone who refuses to learn English in the 21 st century. You can certainly live with that, but you're closing a lot of doors to yourself by refusing to accept the paradigm.

[obryn]

In D&D however, you either know some magic, or you're at a certain disadvantage. It's just the paradigm of the world. People are not protagonists, you are not per se extraordinary if you don't learn extraordinary stuff (magic). And even so, some classes hace certainly a couple of extraordinary feats that make them less 'mundane' (Evasion). Hence why many classes have spells. It's like someone who refuses to learn English in the 21 st century. You can certainly live with that, but you're closing a lot of doors to yourself by refusing to accept the paradigm.
I simply couldn't disagree more strongly. This is enshrining the worst part of pre-4e D&D as a feature.

Also, PCs most certainly are protagonists in every reasonable sense of the word. There's no character in the game who will have more screen-time.

[Speaker]

Mundanes may appear to "suck" because if they want to do something really extraordinary, they either need: a) a magic item. b) the help of a spellcaster. c) DM fiat.


No that's exactly what it means. If a spell caster can do something really extraordinary and doesn't need all that, how can you say mundanes don't suck. They just don't appear to suck they actually suck in comparison to Casters.



The problem is, perhaps, for players like yourself who must want to feel in "control" and "winning" (I'm not by any means saying that's bad or anything, but from what I read it sounds like your preference), maybe the problem is the game itself, not that it's wrong.

I like to win but I like to be able to win using my own style. if winning was my sole priority then I'd just play a caster. I want to feel like I can be productive using my character concept and someone can be productive using theirs and I would hope that the game would make it so but it doesn't.

D&D is foremost a game and a good game is balanced. No matter the play style a player chooses they should be able to meaningfully contribute and not only that never fall too far behind their peers.

[Baptor]

I know this makes no sense and satisfied no one but....

D&D's not supposed to be balanced. Not perfectly anyways.

When 4th came out, I looked at it. I thought, "This is a great game. It's got ingenius rules and its really balanced, but it's not D&D."

I think 4th is amazing, but it's not D&D. I think White Wolf games are a lot of fun, but they are WW games, not D&D games.

This doesn't make them bad or good, just not the same. I've played just about everything out there.

D&D is a game where wizards start out weak and become uber. Fighters are consistent throughout. It's just what D&D is.

Of course you play whatever game you want, be it 4th or WW or d6 or d20 or whatever. But D&D is what it is. I don't expect other games to be like D&D and I don't expect D&D to be like other games.

[Speaker]

I know this makes no sense and satisfied no one but....

D&D's not supposed to be balanced. Not perfectly anyways.


So you're telling me D&D is designed purposely to be a bad game? Hrm...

I'm not saying it has to be perfectly balanced but come on...the gap in abilities is to huge.

[akaddk]

TLDR: Person's initial experience colours their later perceptions of a system and they prefer what they first knew over what is now new to them.

[Lokiare]

I wonder why people try to translate their shonen stuff to western fantasy games all the time.

DnD's most popular editions never intended to feel shonen-y at all. There's nothing wrong with being mundane. It leads to interesting stories, with characters that have weaknesses, get dirty and shat on multiple times and develop a sense of collaboration that is irrelevant for most manga protagonists (which are based in the capability of the protagonist to do anything - ME, ME, ME, ME)

I think OP is trying to ask that a game should have some qualities that don't belong to it in the first place.

4e is based around democracy of power for the group. Check its popularity. By no means I'm trying to say it's a bad game - I played it for 5 years and had a lot of books. I enjoyed it a lot. But in the same sense, I never expected a gritty game when I played 4e, because it's not made for that.

4E at its end was as popular as 3E at its end (i.e. it was so unpopular that the developers felt they needed to make a new edition to meet sales goals).

4E was based around many of the complaints of 3E and upon examination they realized that the core of the problem was the broken vancian casting system. With Jack Vance's estate making their own TTRPG WotC can't just 'fix' vancian casting by using Jack Vance's limitations, and they found players didn't like the limitations of 1E and 2E ("roll a system shock or die" every time you are hasted doesn't seem to go over well with players for some reason). They then thought that people would get angry if it were removed so they gave it to everyone and then added to it with encounter powers and at-will powers.

You are making a false dichotomy here. You don't have to be all about 'me' in order to be equal to wizards in power and ability to alter the world. You can be a team player and still be equal in power. A fighter built around protecting their allies or getting in the face of enemies to stop them from attacking friends are all about teamwork. Grappling the Hill Giant just long enough for the wizard to get off their finger of death spell is teamwork. Unfortunately fighters can't do that in 5E. They can't jump over enemies (even 5' tall ones) or do anything remotely heroic or mythic. Which would be fine if the goals of 5E were to make a game where non-casters are bound by reality, instead of their actual goal of a game for all major play styles.


No character in the game is limited to that. Every character can do far more than that. They can grab or trip. They can stand in front to stop movement. They can RP a taunt. They can do anything the DM and player can agree on.

Just not everything is written out in the rules. (And it shouldn't be, since no matter how many things you can think of for combat rules, I and many hundred of others will come up with something that you didn't think of). If you tried to only allow what is written in the books, you are limiting yourself from any imagination for combat.

Casters can do all that and more. They can grab, trip, stand in front, rp taunt, and anything the players and DM can agree on. Oh they can also use reality bending spells to do that and more.

4E had a ground breaking system to handle improvisations to make them both balanced and effective. Its on page 42 of the PHB. It literally covers everything you can possibly do. An entire game can be designed around it if you wanted.


I know this makes no sense and satisfied no one but....

D&D's not supposed to be balanced. Not perfectly anyways.

When 4th came out, I looked at it. I thought, "This is a great game. It's got ingenius rules and its really balanced, but it's not D&D."

I think 4th is amazing, but it's not D&D. I think White Wolf games are a lot of fun, but they are WW games, not D&D games.

This doesn't make them bad or good, just not the same. I've played just about everything out there.

D&D is a game where wizards start out weak and become uber. Fighters are consistent throughout. It's just what D&D is.

Of course you play whatever game you want, be it 4th or WW or d6 or d20 or whatever. But D&D is what it is. I don't expect other games to be like D&D and I don't expect D&D to be like other games.

And this is complete tripe. D&D by definition is whatever WotC wants it to be. They could defecate in a box and call it D&D and it would be D&D. What you think D&D is, turns out to be what you enjoyed most about D&D which is based on tradition and personal preference and nothing more. For others D&D is 4E (as the OP can attest to), 3E, 0E, 1E, or 2E, possibly even BECMI/RC. You don't define what D&D is, that's the law and WotC that do that.

It would be much more clear for you to say that your preferred game is X edition, and you don't enjoy anything else. Personally I have played every edition from 2E on and I view D&D as any game that has come under its banner because they all have the same things in common, murder hobos living in a fantasy world delving into dungeons and castles and fighting beholders, dragons, and displacer beasts.


TLDR: Person's initial experience colours their later perceptions of a system and they prefer what they first knew over what is now new to them.

Yep, basically its the 'by tradition' fallacy.

[TripleD]

With Jack Vance's estate making their own TTRPG WotC can't just 'fix' vancian casting by using Jack Vance's limitations.


Why not? The limitations are basically time and resources, neither of which can be copyrighted.

Granted, that could allow it to swing too far in the other direction. If D&D seriously enforced material components and IOUN-stone-like carriers, then wizards could become so tedious to play that few would ever pick up the class (who wants to spend a week getting their fireball ready?). This is a class that's already heavy on the bookkeeping.

[Person_Man]

The second to last paragraph from the "Wonders of Magic" description, which is in both the Basic rules and the Player's Handbook, is noteworthy:


For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival. Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by
powerful foes. Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold.

The game explicitly tells you that magic is the key to survival, you need healing magic or you'll quickly die, that warriors might need magical support to beat powerful foes, and that the power and versatility of magic makes every threat ten times less difficult.

During 5E development and play tests the relative power and role of magic, especially magic healing, was hotly debated. The design team's final decision was that yes, the game assumes that you will be playing in a party with classes that use magic, and that using magic is basically required for survival. The rationale has generally been that some players prefer super awesome amazing magic users and other players prefer mundane warriors and skill monkeys, and they want to get all of those players playing/buying the same game. So it's better to have them all at the same table and let the DM handle any imbalance issues (Polymorph, Animate Dead, what if no one wants to play a healer, etc) instead of creating a balanced set of rules (which would make a large segment of players unhappy because their favorite class doesn't meet their expectations based on how they played in previous editions of D&D).

[obryn]

TLDR: Person's initial experience colours their later perceptions of a system and they prefer what they first knew over what is now new to them.
I dunno; I started with Moldvay Basic, played (A)D&D a bunch in the 80's, and played a bunch of cruft-heavy RPGs like Mythus in the 90's, a bunch of 3e in the 00's, and now look where I am.

[akaddk]

I dunno; I started with Moldvay Basic, played (A)D&D a bunch in the 80's, and played a bunch of cruft-heavy RPGs like Mythus in the 90's, a bunch of 3e in the 00's, and now look where I am.

You hate 5e.

He shoots! He scores! GAME OVER!

[Caelic]

Here's the thing:

The idea that gamers, as a whole, make "game balance" one of their main priorities is, I would argue, a myth. In fact, I would go so far aso to say that the idea that gamers, as a whole, even want a "balanced game" is a myth.

Put away the flamethrowers, please. Hear me out.

I'm not saying that there aren't some players who genuinely want a balanced game, I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of players who give lip service to "game balance" because it's something you're supposed to want, and I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of players who think they want a balanced game.

I'm saying that, when a truly balanced game comes along, it tends to not do well--because gamers, as a breed, like to one-up each other. They enjoy finding those combinations that result in disproportionate power. Hell, that is very nearly the sole and only reason for the continued success of games like Magic: the Gathering. If you built a CCG with stable, balanced options that all work equally well all the time? I suspect it would flop. In the successful CCGs, balance is CONSTANTLY in flux, and NEVER balanced--there's ALWAYS one strategy that works exceptionally well, and the sales of the game are in large part driven by the pursuit of such strategies as they shift from expansion to expansion.

I wound up being asked to give feedback on the 4e PHB before it came out, and my response was "Congratulations. You've achieved exactly what you set out to do. You had a clear vision for a game, and you have created a system that is cohesive and well-balanced. I don't think it's going to be the success that you want it to be, because I don't think gamers as a whole WANT that."

Now, I'm sure there are people who will argue the point, but I think the overall performance of fourth edition bore out that prediction. It WAS a well-designed, well-balanced game, FAR better balanced than 3.5 or Pathfinder--and Pathfinder proceeded to eclipse it in terms of popularity.

Personally, I tend to quantify "balance" differently than many people. For a lot of people, "balance" is about numbers. Option X should be mechanically on parity with option Y, or they're not balanced.

For me, "balance" simply comes down to one factor: fun. If everyone at the table has an equal opportunity to have fun, the game is balanced. If everyone at the table does NOT have an equal opportunity to have fun, the game is NOT balanced. I don't care about parity of options or mechanics; those are a means to an end. "Fun" is the end itself.

Take Buffy: the Vampire Slayer, for instance. It's NOT a balanced game by most people's definition. The Scoobies are, BY DESIGN, less powerful than the Slayer. That's built right into the game. And yet, it works, and it works well, because the Scoobies fill a niche that the Slayer can't fill.

Ars Magica is another great example of the kind of dynamic balance I'm talking about. Mages are, far and away, the most powerful characters in Ars Magica. Companions are mundanes who have specialized skills the mages lack. Grogs? Well, grogs are the grunts, the spear-carriers. If I'm playing a mage and you're playing a grog, my character is MASSIVELY more powerful than yours.

But the roles rotated. In this session, I'm playing the mage and you're playing one of the grogs; next session, I might be playing my companion assisting your mage. The session after that, you might be playing your companion, and I might be picking up the spear as one of the grogs.

Everyone gets their moment in the spotlight; everyone gets to have fun, WITHOUT trying to force every character to be exactly as powerful as every other character.

To me? That's game balance.

[obryn]

You hate 5e.

He shoots! He scores! GAME OVER!
Oh for pete's sake. No, I don't at all.

[Thrudd]

I think Basic and AD&D worked fine for keeping spell casters in check, if the rules were followed (often they weren't). A return to those sorts of limitations would solve the issues people have with 3e and now 5e wizards.
Keep strict track of time. Long rests in dangerous places should be all but impossible. Spells require 15 minutes per spell level per spell to memorize, and a full night's sleep beforehand. Enforce casting times, higher level spells always take longer to cast. Being hit while casting automatically spoils the spell. You lose your dex bonus to AC while casting.

1st level starting spells in a wizard's book are chosen at random, you get whatever the character's teacher knew or chose to teach. Spells are never available for sale, they can only be found during adventuring as scrolls or copied from other spell books. Only one new spell is chosen upon gaining a level, and the magic user must make an intelligence-based check to see if he/she is even capable of understanding any spell that they want to add to their book. This means it is possible that you could choose "fireball" for your fifth level spell, or find it in a scroll, but fail your comprehension roll and never be able to copy it into your book. You also have a maximum number of spells allowed per spell level.
Crafting even the simplest of magic items requires a high level magic user, lots of money and time, and is never guaranteed to be successful. There is no popping out wands loaded with whatever spell you want for pocket change. Even scribing scrolls requires minimum 7th level, requires exotic materials that probably require a quest to procure, and has a chance of failing.

Magic users start out very weak. Some of their higher level spells are powerful, but many games never even reach those levels. The spells you get throughout your career tend to be gained more at random, from whatever is rolled on the treasure tables and the spell comprehension rolls, rather than carefully chosen in order to create optimized combinations and efficient strategies. Especially at low levels, the wizard's talent must be in figuring out creative ways to use the sometimes obscure and seemingly worthless spells he manages to find, and judging carefully when the is the best time to use them.

[obryn]

Ars Magica is another great example of the kind of dynamic balance I'm talking about. Mages are, far and away, the most powerful characters in Ars Magica. Companions are mundanes who have specialized skills the mages lack. Grogs? Well, grogs are the grunts, the spear-carriers. If I'm playing a mage and you're playing a grog, my character is MASSIVELY more powerful than yours.

But the roles rotated. In this session, I'm playing the mage and you're playing one of the grogs; next session, I might be playing my companion assisting your mage. The session after that, you might be playing your companion, and I might be picking up the spear as one of the grogs.

Everyone gets their moment in the spotlight; everyone gets to have fun, WITHOUT trying to force every character to be exactly as powerful as every other character.

To me? That's game balance.
Ars Magica handles it great, yeah.

The problem is that D&D doesn't run like Ars Magica does. There's no rotation. But arguably, it's just as lopsided. Certainly in 3e. Maybe in 5e. And as for Buffy/Angel? Yep, that works fine, too, but there's a more dynamic balance at play with drama points and with the white hats' vital support roles. Those games have solid ways to deal with their intended dynamic imbalances. D&D, OTOH, tends to pretend like everyone's on the same footing. It's Ars without the troupe.

[Fwiffo86]

Spells require 15 minutes per spell level per spell to memorize, and a full night's sleep beforehand. everything else snipped to shorten post

Am I the only one still using these rules? I enforced them in every edition I played, even Pathfinder. No one batted an eyelash about it. I just figured it was the default way to go about things.

[WickerNipple]

You hate 5e.

He shoots! He scores! GAME OVER!

Have we really reached the point in the edition where fanbois have to attack all criticism?

[hawklost]

Have we really reached the point in the edition where fanbois have to attack all criticism?

No, some people on this forum have just reached the point that when certain other people speak that the people who have been arguing against them get tired of hearing the same kind of argument over and over.

Obryn doesn't like the game that much, he has pointed it out in the majority of his posts. He isn't nearly as bad as Lokiare (who pretty much always tries to ruin the enjoyment) but he is pretty negative in most of his posts (if not negative, then he repeats his argument over and over in many different locations, like the Necro argument even when it has no bearing on that discussion).

I always find it funny when people start using the word fanbois and other derogates like that. I would guess that you have not spent a huge amount of time reading through all the older posts to get an idea as to why akaddk might actually make that claim against Obryn. Obryn does appear to portray a large amount of his posts in the light of hating the game as is and wanting it changed.

[akaddk]

Have we really reached the point in the edition where fanbois have to attack all criticism?

You have no sense of humour.

I'm taking my d20 and going home.

[obryn]

No, some people on this forum have just reached the point that when certain other people speak that the people who have been arguing against them get tired of hearing the same kind of argument over and over.

Obryn doesn't like the game that much, he has pointed it out in the majority of his posts. He isn't nearly as bad as Lokiare (who pretty much always tries to ruin the enjoyment) but he is pretty negative in most of his posts (if not negative, then he repeats his argument over and over in many different locations, like the Necro argument even when it has no bearing on that discussion).

I always find it funny when people start using the word fanbois and other derogates like that. I would guess that you have not spent a huge amount of time reading through all the older posts to get an idea as to why akaddk might actually make that claim against Obryn. Obryn does appear to portray a large amount of his posts in the light of hating the game as is and wanting it changed.
You don't think it might maybe be more productive to argue against my criticisms instead of against me? Because I'm seeing a whole lot of "Obryn isn't a huge fan, so his arguments can be safely disregarded" up there. If you think I'm trolling, just ignore-list me; I promise you won't hurt my feelings.

I'd also invite you to take the time to look at 5e posts from about a year ago when I was pretty much the biggest 5e booster in the discussion threads. Gosh, how time flies.

[hawklost]

You don't think it might maybe be more productive to argue against my criticisms instead of against me? Because I'm seeing a whole lot of "Obryn isn't a huge fan, so his arguments can be safely disregarded" up there. If you think I'm trolling, just ignore-list me; I promise you won't hurt my feelings.

I'd also invite you to take the time to look at 5e posts from about a year ago when I was pretty much the biggest 5e booster in the discussion threads. Gosh, how time flies.

5e posts from before 5e was actually published (Or Finalized) isn't a very good example. I could point to people who were excited about something and then decided for whatever reason the final product was not to their liking and so became rabid critics of it in every way. I understand people who find something they thought was going to be awesome was not up to their expectations, but in my opinion, that doesn't excuse the behavior.

As for directly responding to you. I do when I feel I have an argument against you. I also try to keep it civil and I know I fail that sometimes, I have a snarky attitude towards everything. I am not someone who thinks your opinions don't matter but I get more frustrated that you post your negative arguments on different parts of the forums that have little relevance to that topic.

Your posting about the Necro was technically correct and you weren't like some who completely hand wave any Roleplaying or DM effects but you seem to be against negative effects in Roleplay (or maybe you feel your characters just wouldn't care). I am of the opinion that DMs should control the world to make it fun and exciting, that includes 'punishing' PCs (Not specifically aiming at a player) who do things that would be seen as negative in the world.

Finally, I only put people on the Ignore list who I feel are outright trolling the boards constantly (which means there is only 1 there at the moment) but I don't see you as trolling as much as extremely disappointed in the system.

EDIT: You might notice also that all my comments on this thread that relate to something you say as a criticism of the game, not a personal attack on you.

[obryn]

EDIT: You might notice also that all my comments on this thread that relate to something you say as a criticism of the game, not a personal attack on you.
No, your post immediately above this was completely ad hominem, even if it wasn't specifically a personal attack.

Make it about my posts, not me, and we have no problems.

[hawklost]

No, your post immediately above this was completely ad hominem, even if it wasn't specifically a personal attack.

Make it about my posts, not me, and we have no problems.

So your complaint was about me responding to someone else as to why people sometimes posted attacks on others?

You do realize that it wasn't specific about you that the commentor made. It was about his comment on fanbois. I responded to his post using you as the example because he was attacking someone who responded negatively to you.

You are only referenced because it was related. I commented on how your posts appear to some others and how you make comments. I did no personal attack directed at you but instead was educating someone else as to why someone might have attacked you. I in no way claimed your arguments were invalid in that post and if you actually read it and try some trick of not taking personal offense you might realize that. It was a post about why someone might decide to be negative towards your posts and how that there is a history around it.

Again though, did you bother reading my post or just taking exception to the fact that I referenced you? Or is it because I compared you to Lokiare? Reading the post indicates I said there might be a reason akaddk might make a claim against you. I did not support akaddk's claim nor did I say I agree with his way of doing it, those are both you reading the post incorrectly for whatever reason you choose.

[archaeo]

Again though, did you bother reading my post or just taking exception to the fact that I referenced you? Or is it because I compared you to Lokiare? Reading the post indicates I said there might be a reason akaddk might make a claim against you. I did not support akaddk's claim nor did I say I agree with his way of doing it, those are both you reading the post incorrectly for whatever reason you choose.

whatever's going on, people probably shouldn't put words in other posters' mouths. It's kind of unseemly how often people are wont to trot out Lokiare's name, honestly, and obryn certainly doesn't deserve any abuse. I mean, he could probably stand to drop the stick and back away from the skeletonized horse, but he has as much a right to his opinion as anyone.

Just embrace the edition war, guys. You can try to dress yourself up as some kind of truth speaker or wise critic, but we're all just sitting around arguing about the merits of 5e compared to 4e, or compared to some other game, or to the magical utopian edition living in your head. Edition wars are like the tides; eternal, everlasting, and unchanging. Relax and let it sweep you away, but keep it civil and maybe stop calling people out like this means something. It's nerds kvetching about elf games.

Pretty small potatoes, in these unpleasant times.

[charcoalninja]

If they would have given us 4evers even one martial class that functioned remotely close to a 4e one (cough Warlord Cough) I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having most of these conversations. All the 4e crowd got in this edition is the Warlock and the terribleness that is the Battlemaster Fighter.

Even short rests thus far are barely a thing since they take so long to do.

Honestly if the Battlemaster had been closer in ability and versitility to the 4e Fighter, I'm sure half these threads would disappear.

[obryn]

I mean, he could probably stand to drop the stick and back away from the skeletonized horse, but he has as much a right to his opinion as anyone.
Skeletons are relevant to everything, man.

Think about it. You have a skeleton inside you, right now.

[EvilAnagram]

If they would have given us 4evers even one martial class that functioned remotely close to a 4e one (cough Warlord Cough) I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having most of these conversations. All the 4e crowd got in this edition is the Warlock and the terribleness that is the Battlemaster Fighter.

Even short rests thus far are barely a thing since they take so long to do.

Honestly if the Battlemaster had been closer in ability and versitility to the 4e Fighter, I'm sure half these threads would disappear.

I'm sorry, but isn't the Battlemaster basically a Warlord? It has Commander's Strike (with a damage boost), and it has numerous options that let you attack while exercising some form of battlefield control. What about that screams, "not a warlord," to you?

[charcoalninja]

I'm sorry, but isn't the Battlemaster basically a Warlord? It has Commander's Strike (with a damage boost), and it has numerous options that let you attack while exercising some form of battlefield control. What about that screams, "not a warlord," to you?

That all of the maneuvers are really deplorably weak that uses an extremely limited encounter resource?

The Battlemaster has the basics there, but they went less than half way to where they should have. I don't have the PHB at the moment so I can't reference the abilities but from what I've seen they're very weak and do not hold a candle to what is going to be around at high level play.

Maybe the previews and leaks I've seen have been wrong, I'd LOVE to be here in a few days singing a different tune lol. If Battlemaster's maneuvers are interesting enough and seem like they'd remain effective at high level play, I'll be happy enough with 5e. I'd have my 4e style caster (Warlock) and a 4e style martial (aka one that isn't boring as sin to play).

Edition wars aside, I've been playing D&D since 1998 starting with my Advanced Dungeons and Dragons books (the one with the loincloth fighter busting open a door on the PHB, THACO and such), through 3rd and 3.5 and onto 4th, and the only edition where I was even remotely interested in playing a mundane was 4th. That to me is telling.

Ah well, people like different things.

[obryn]

I'm sorry, but isn't the Battlemaster basically a Warlord? It has Commander's Strike (with a damage boost), and it has numerous options that let you attack while exercising some form of battlefield control. What about that screams, "not a warlord," to you?
It's a matter of scope. Like, vast fields of scope. From not actually healing real HP to ... well, everything the Warlord does that's not Commander's Strike. And there's a lot of it, from moving around your companions to mass-effect buffs/heals, and so on. Oh, and let's not forget that Commander's Strike now takes short-rest resources to trigger. :smallsmile:

If all your Warlord ever did was Commander's Strike, sure, but...

[Speaker]

The only thing I can see from all the post defending the way D&D is and Vancian magic is that they prefer a game that's extremely lopsided. Whatever floats your boat but I like games that have a bunch of classes that are all fun to play not just Casters. The thing that irritates me about the argument is that people aren't even denying that that the discrepancy exist and not only that it seems like they don't want it fix. I mean if that's that's case why not just remove the martial classes that don't have magic that seems like the best thing imo. I'd prefer that to having a bunch of bad option available then claiming that you're game is working to fix it's problems when you know your consumers don't want it fixed.

I'm not asking for a perfectly balanced but even in MTG there's something called competitive balance, Deck A might beat Deck C but Deck B beats Deck A. People wouldn't play it if that wasn't the case. In D&D there's no semblance of that right now and that's the way people like it. People enjoy the game in it's mangled and broken form and that's why WoTC released it like this. It makes me sad that people prefer it like this but there's always homebrews/other games. I'm just disappointed in 5e because it seems like a huge step backwards.

Also I only played one session of 4e, I'm not a long time 4e player or anything, I really don't have any stake in the game.

[EvilAnagram]

It's a matter of scope. Like, vast fields of scope. From not actually healing real HP to ... well, everything the Warlord does that's not Commander's Strike. And there's a lot of it, from moving around your companions to mass-effect buffs/heals, and so on. Oh, and let's not forget that Commander's Strike now takes short-rest resources to trigger. :smallsmile:

If all your Warlord ever did was Commander's Strike, sure, but...

I suppose that's true. In 4e you could rearrange the entire battlefield, give buffs to your party, and heal in the same turn. Now, you're limited to passing out 1d12+3 THP at high levels and maybe pulling off another maneuver, and you're limited to six. That's pretty lame.

[hawklost]

The only thing I can see from all the post defending the way D&D is and Vancian magic is that they prefer a game that's extremely lopsided. Whatever floats your boat but I like games that have a bunch of classes that are all fun to play not just Casters. The thing that irritates me about the argument is that people aren't even denying that that the discrepancy exist and not only that it seems like they don't want it fix. I mean if that's that's case why not just remove the martial classes that don't have magic that seems like the best thing imo. I'd prefer that to having a bunch of bad option available then claiming that you're game is working to fix it's problems when you know your consumers don't want it fixed.

I'm not asking for a perfectly balanced but even in MTG there's something called competitive balance, Deck A might beat Deck C but Deck B beats Deck A. People wouldn't play it if that wasn't the case. In D&D there's no semblance of that right now and that's the way people like it. People enjoy the game in it's mangled and broken form and that's why WoTC released it like this. It makes me sad that people prefer it like this but there's always homebrews/other games. I'm just disappointed in 5e because it seems like a huge step backwards.

Also I only played one session of 4e, I'm not a long time 4e player or anything, I really don't have any stake in the game.

See, the problem with perception is that it is purely your own. You see 5e as a step backwards, many people on this forum seem to see it as a step in the right direction and not only that, but a step past 3e games in the right direction. They saw 4e games as a step in the wrong direction.

Both people are correct, because all you are doing is basing it on your own opinion, which can never actually be wrong. My suggestion to you is this. If you don't enjoy the way 5e is set up and would prefer the style of 4e, then go find groups of 4e, they exist everywhere. That is not me telling you to gtfo or anything, it is just saying if you don't like the way 5e is by now, it isn't going to radically shift to a more 4e style. Maybe WotC will shift 6e towards a 4e style if they make it but 5e is too fundamentally different to work that way now without ripping 80-90% of it apart and building your own system on top of it.

[obryn]

I suppose that's true. In 4e you could rearrange the entire battlefield, give buffs to your party, and heal in the same turn. Now, you're limited to passing out 1d12+3 THP at high levels and maybe pulling off another maneuver, and you're limited to six. That's pretty lame.
Yeah, pretty much. Those of us who loved martial characters in 4e are, I think, understandably disappointed with the reduction in their flexibility this edition. Most of the Battlemaster's 'encounter' maneuvers, for example, are about on par with 4e At-Wills. Worse, really, because you (1) need to hit, and then (2) the enemy needs to save. So there's a two-gate process instead of just one.

I don't think it's unsolvable, though. Not all hope is lost. We just need to get better martial classes - whether that's a sneaky not-really-replacement like Bo9S was in 3.5, or outright improvements in later (or third-party) books. Heck, even something relatively minor like higher-level maneuvers would be a good addition. (And I frankly don't understand why they weren't in the core rules; use the Warlock's Invocations as a comparison, here.)

[charcoalninja]

For me I'm either going to just port over all of 4e wholesale or I might just add on 4e power progressions for the Fighter, Rogue and Monk and call it a day.

[Caelic]

Maybe WotC will shift 6e towards a 4e style if they make it but 5e is too fundamentally different to work that way now without ripping 80-90% of it apart and building your own system on top of it.


At the risk of sounding cynical, if 5e isn't a success, I don't think there'll be a 6e.

[hawklost]

At the risk of sounding cynical, if 5e isn't a success, I don't think there'll be a 6e.

And if it is, 6e could still be more like 4e

If 4e was a success by their metrics, they still chose to make 5e back towards 3e. So they could make 6e back towards 4e even if 5e succeeds or even fails

If 4e was a failure by their metrics, they still were able to make 5e. So in that case, if 5e fails, they still could make a 6e.

[Person_Man]

At the risk of sounding cynical, if 5e isn't a success, I don't think there'll be a 6e.

My belief is that the opposite is true. As long as 5E keeps making lots of money, they will continue to sell it. When it ceases to meet Hasbro's corporate sales forecast, they will fire everyone, hire new people, and make a new edition, because new editions always make a pile of money in the first 6-12 months of sales.

In fact, I'd be happy to make a gentleman's bet that 5.5 will be published before the end of 2018, and 6th edition will be published before the end of 2022.

[Caelic]

My belief is that the opposite is true. As long as 5E keeps making lots of money, they will continue to sell it. When it ceases to meet Hasbro's corporate sales forecast, they will fire everyone, hire new people, and make a new edition, because new editions always make a pile of money in the first 6-12 months of sales.

In fact, I'd be happy to make a gentleman's bet that 5.5 will be published before the end of 2018, and 6th edition will be published before the end of 2022.


I'll take that bet, Person Man, because this is a situation where I'd really like to be wrong. I want 5E to do well, and I'm more optimistic that it will than I was two years ago, or even a year ago. Most of the predictions I made when 4e came out were on the money--down to pegging the announcement of 5e to within a two-month window--but I was wrong about 5e being negatively received, and I hope to be wrong about Hasbro deciding to shelve the tabletop game and just make money on the IP. (D&D, the intellectual property has been considerably more profitable than D&D, the tabletop game since the waning days of TSR.)

[Fwiffo86]

My belief is that the opposite is true. As long as 5E keeps making lots of money, they will continue to sell it. When it ceases to meet Hasbro's corporate sales forecast, they will fire everyone, hire new people, and make a new edition, because new editions always make a pile of money in the first 6-12 months of sales.

In fact, I'd be happy to make a gentleman's bet that 5.5 will be published before the end of 2018, and 6th edition will be published before the end of 2022.

Can't take that bet. That is just good solid business economics. Why else would we have 130 versions of transformers after all?

And I'm sorry to say this PM, but every time I read your name all I can hear in my head is:

PERSON MAAAAAAAN! (think Orcan man commercials)

[Caelic]

And I'm sorry to say this PM, but every time I read your name all I can hear in my head is:

PERSON MAAAAAAAN! (think Orcan man commercials)



Be nice to Person Man. He was, after all, hit in the head with a frying pan, lived his life in a garbage can, and got beaten up by Triangle Man.

[Person_Man]

Be nice to Person Man. He was, after all, hit in the head with a frying pan, lived his life in a garbage can, and got beaten up by Triangle Man.

Interestingly enough, I though that the reference was obscure enough that almost no one would recognize it. I'm happy to be disproven. :smallsmile:

[rlc]

Magic users start out very weak.
the problem is that this just isn't true.
there is a level 1 cleric spell that does 3d10 damage (unless that's been changed since the basic rules v0.1 came out).
if you don't want to waste your spell slots, there is a wizard cantrip that deals about the same damage as a fighter, but it also has both its own special condition for giving advantage and the ability to make it so that the target can't do anything for an entire round if it hits.
and these are just touch spells. the fighter has to play catch-up from level 1. he manages to do it after a few levels, but even then...well, there's the rest of this thread.


Interestingly enough, I though that the reference was obscure enough that almost no one would recognize it. I'm happy to be disproven. :smallsmile:
ever hear of tiny toons?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pG0QTzO-K0

[obryn]

Interestingly enough, I though that the reference was obscure enough that almost no one would recognize it. I'm happy to be disproven. :smallsmile:
Nah, dude, I'm almost 40; TMBG was a big part of my childhood. :smallbiggrin: I used to sing Bluebird at karaoke bars.

Totally off-topic, they also have the best childrens' albums ever made. Here Comes Science is amazing.

[Caelic]

Interestingly enough, I though that the reference was obscure enough that almost no one would recognize it. I'm happy to be disproven. :smallsmile:


Comes with the territory when you marry a TMBG fanatic. I've been to about a dozen They shows; she's been to more. :smallbiggrin:

[pwykersotz]

Interestingly enough, I though that the reference was obscure enough that almost no one would recognize it. I'm happy to be disproven. :smallsmile:

Haha, I actually thought it was obvious enough that it wouldn't need to be called out. :smalltongue:

So a question in response to all the people who think 5e martial classes are a step back from 4e. Tell me, could the 4e classes be ported? Note I've never played a 4e game, so detailed references are going to whiz right by me.

[Fwiffo86]

Haha, I actually thought it was obvious enough that it wouldn't need to be called out. :smalltongue:

So a question in response to all the people who think 5e martial classes are a step back from 4e. Tell me, could the 4e classes be ported? Note I've never played a 4e game, so detailed references are going to whiz right by me.

I think this....and this is based on not having my book yet, and only going by what I've read here...

Battlemaster (?) gets 1 die and and several choices of maneuvers. Then that die needs a short rest to recover. This sounds like spell casting to me. You have X dice to spend per short rest and get X dice back when you rest. The first fix is to grant additional dice (additional spell slots) as you level. The second fix is to adjust the per-existing maneuvers to scale in some way. I cannot suggest options to this effect, as I have never seen the maneuvers.

Without the maneuver descriptions, I think adding damage, targets, increasing effect output are all easily viable.

Both of these should be quick and easy fixes, either in errata, or by houserule.

[Caelic]

I think this....and this is based on not having my book yet, and only going by what I've read here...

Battlemaster (?) gets 1 die and and several choices of maneuvers. Then that die needs a short rest to recover. This sounds like spell casting to me. You have X dice to spend per short rest and get X dice back when you rest. The first fix is to grant additional dice (additional spell slots) as you level. The second fix is to adjust the per-existing maneuvers to scale in some way. I cannot suggest options to this effect, as I have never seen the maneuvers.

Without the maneuver descriptions, I think adding damage, targets, increasing effect output are all easily viable.

Both of these should be quick and easy fixes, either in errata, or by houserule.

Battlemaster actually starts with four dice, not one; people who pick up maneuvers via the Martial Adept feat start with one die.

[Fwiffo86]

Battlemaster actually starts with four dice, not one; people who pick up maneuvers via the Martial Adept feat start with one die.

Thanks for the clarification!!

[Falka]

No that's exactly what it means. If a spell caster can do something really extraordinary and doesn't need all that, how can you say mundanes don't suck. They just don't appear to suck they actually suck in comparison to Casters.

For me, to do something extraordinary means that it's out of the ordinarily posible, aka superhuman. You can be a powerful fighter, a skilled Rouge and dodge a lot of projectiles, but you are still failible. You are not perfect.

Magic is what justifies bending reality to meet unrealistic expectations (like, I can effortlessly climb this wall, or even walk on it like it's just a part of the floor). You want to dodge bullets, then you either need to have superhuman speed or stop time.

If "mundanes" can bend the laws of physics just by sheer training, what's the point of studying magic? Who would ever want to waste their lives to become a Wizard?


I like to win but I like to be able to win using my own style. if winning was my sole priority then I'd just play a caster. I want to feel like I can be productive using my character concept and someone can be productive using theirs and I would hope that the game would make it so but it doesn't.

Define winning. Do you win if you save the princess? If you beat the BBEG? If you save the kingdom? Do you 'win more' if you use magic? Can you save princesses as a knight, or do you need to be a Wizard?

I agree that some spells, when the DM is too open minded, can be campaign breaking or make some plot hooks trivial, but nobody said that magic -doesn't- have limits. It does. For starters: magic makes you dependant on its usage. You count on magic and start relying on it to solve everything. What happens when you face an encounter that cannot be solved through the use of magic?

I can see several ways of doing this.



D&D is foremost a game and a good game is balanced. No matter the play style a player chooses they should be able to meaningfully contribute and not only that never fall too far behind their peers.

Good games are fun. For me, a good RPG is one that allows me to enjoy playing certain character archetypes or allow me to find a fun niche to play. As long as it allows me to beat challenges that are suitable for my level / rank of expertise, I don't care if I need to solve them through magic, swordplay or hula-hopping.

If balance was really a huge concern for players, 4e should have been a huge success and I find people saying crap about it all day. The same people that cry about it are usually the same that also whine about being subjected to this strange mage-tyranny in 5e. They're by no means as strong as before, considering that they can't "save spells for later" through scrolls, buy massive amounts of wands, store spells in items, etc. Casters can be exhausted now, they have limited resources and it's the DM's job to make them burn those.

I've been playing 5e for over a month and I haven't encountered these hugely gamebreaking features that everybody cries about. People don't pick a calculator while playing and say "Jesus, Timmy just dished a total of 98 damage in that round" (hitting a Fireball in a mob of 10 goblins). They say, rather: "Wow, thanks to the gods that Timmy just wrecked those goblins or we'd be in trouble". Then Fighter Joe smacks the big bad werewolf because he's the only guy within the group that has 19 CA so he can actually take a few hits.

Hey, maybe I'm just really wrong and I don't get the point of the game.


there is a level 1 cleric spell that does 3d10 damage (unless that's been changed since the basic rules v0.1 came out).

It's called Inflict Wounds, it has Touch range, it only affects a single target and it requires to expend a level 1 slot. So you're blowing up 50% of your healing resources at level 1 to damage a BBEG with a spell that can range from 3 HP to 30.

[obryn]

If "mundanes" can bend the laws of physics just by sheer training, what's the point of studying magic? Who would ever want to waste their lives to become a Wizard?
It's a game; the amount of time the Wizard spent in apprenticeship is hardly meaningful at the game table.

[Speaker]

For me, to do something extraordinary means that it's out of the ordinarily posible, aka superhuman. You can be a powerful fighter, a skilled Rouge and dodge a lot of projectiles, but you are still failible. You are not perfect.

Magic is what justifies bending reality to meet unrealistic expectations (like, I can effortlessly climb this wall, or even walk on it like it's just a part of the floor). You want to dodge bullets, then you either need to have superhuman speed or stop time.

If "mundanes" can bend the laws of physics just by sheer training, what's the point of studying magic? Who would ever want to waste their lives to become a Wizard?


I'm not asking for mundanes to literally flex their muscles so hard that they cast knock. I'm asking for a boost in abilities that pertain to their realm of expertise. Like Epic level stuff where someone can be as strong as Heracles or as durable as Achilles or cut bullets in half with a sword or as cunning as Sin Bad. Yeah I want my fighters and rogues to be Super Human. I don't see what the harm can be. Wizards can still be gods but muggles get to be demigods. I know that's not really the setting D&D is in but I think it'll be a nice change of pace. The setting in my opinion doesn't really work because in stories Wizards took a back seat to the knights in shining armor whereas when you place everyone on equal footing story wise you just get the wizard outshining the knight because of what he can do.

Plus the Wizard's training doesn't even have any impact on the playing of the game and I don't subscribe to the idea that Wizard is supposed to be whittled down so that the other players can shine. That just shows how disruptive magic is to the story.



Define winning. Do you win if you save the princess? If you beat the BBEG? If you save the kingdom? Do you 'win more' if you use magic? Can you save princesses as a knight, or do you need to be a Wizard?

I agree that some spells, when the DM is too open minded, can be campaign breaking or make some plot hooks trivial, but nobody said that magic -doesn't- have limits. It does. For starters: magic makes you dependant on its usage. You count on magic and start relying on it to solve everything. What happens when you face an encounter that cannot be solved through the use of magic?

I can see several ways of doing this.


Yeah sure accomplishing the over arching goal is winning but nothing feels more like losing when you're practically useless and someone else can do something as well as you can imo.

Of course Wizards rely on magic everything, that's their class feature. I'm not saying take away the thing that makes it special, just make it less powerful. Your example seems akin to saying to a fighter, Your martial skill makes you dependent on it's usage you count on it and start to rely on it to solve everything. Well no ****.

[Lokiare]

No, some people on this forum have just reached the point that when certain other people speak that the people who have been arguing against them get tired of hearing the same kind of argument over and over.

I know, tell me about it. From repeated arguments that have been proven false to a litany of logically inconsistent arguments to just flat out wrong information. It just gets old.


Obryn doesn't like the game that much, he has pointed it out in the majority of his posts. He isn't nearly as bad as Lokiare (who pretty much always tries to ruin the enjoyment) but he is pretty negative in most of his posts (if not negative, then he repeats his argument over and over in many different locations, like the Necro argument even when it has no bearing on that discussion).

I don't try to ruin anything. I look at the facts available and then make a determination based on those facts. I then change that determination when new facts are available.


I always find it funny when people start using the word fanbois and other derogates like that. I would guess that you have not spent a huge amount of time reading through all the older posts to get an idea as to why akaddk might actually make that claim against Obryn. Obryn does appear to portray a large amount of his posts in the light of hating the game as is and wanting it changed.

And disliking the game is now a crime. If you dislike parts of the game nothing you say can be taken seriously right?

This is a discussion with people that like 5E, don't like 5E, and have no opinion about 5E. In order to get along we have to examine each others facts and ignore the opinions. We change peoples opinions based on the facts we present, not the other way round. Many people get this kind of stuff wrong.


You don't think it might maybe be more productive to argue against my criticisms instead of against me? Because I'm seeing a whole lot of "Obryn isn't a huge fan, so his arguments can be safely disregarded" up there. If you think I'm trolling, just ignore-list me; I promise you won't hurt my feelings.

I'd also invite you to take the time to look at 5e posts from about a year ago when I was pretty much the biggest 5e booster in the discussion threads. Gosh, how time flies.

Yes, many of my predictions have come true and many people have changed from loving 5E to disliking it or becoming neutral on the subject.


I'm sorry, but isn't the Battlemaster basically a Warlord? It has Commander's Strike (with a damage boost), and it has numerous options that let you attack while exercising some form of battlefield control. What about that screams, "not a warlord," to you?

Wahahahahahahaaaahahhaaaahaaa....oh....oh wait... you were... you were serious weren't you? Looks like we have another person unfamiliar with 4E. Well in order to do what the warlord can do the Battlemaster would have to grant 2-3 buffs per turn, one of which could be healing or granting an ally an attack, but could also include granting or denying (dis)advantage, granting temp hp, granting resistance to attacks, etc...etc...

Yeah, calling the Battlemaster a replacement for the Warlord is a laughable joke. But then comparing 5E to 4E for tactical mythical fun is also a joke.


See, the problem with perception is that it is purely your own. You see 5e as a step backwards, many people on this forum seem to see it as a step in the right direction and not only that, but a step past 3e games in the right direction. They saw 4e games as a step in the wrong direction.

Both people are correct, because all you are doing is basing it on your own opinion, which can never actually be wrong. My suggestion to you is this. If you don't enjoy the way 5e is set up and would prefer the style of 4e, then go find groups of 4e, they exist everywhere. That is not me telling you to gtfo or anything, it is just saying if you don't like the way 5e is by now, it isn't going to radically shift to a more 4e style. Maybe WotC will shift 6e towards a 4e style if they make it but 5e is too fundamentally different to work that way now without ripping 80-90% of it apart and building your own system on top of it.

The problem with this is that they keep telling everyone that 5E is for all play styles and for all players of past editions. If they came out and told us 4E players to go imagination ourselves we would go away and not mess with 5E ever again.

[TripleD]

Like Epic level stuff where someone can be as strong as Heracles or as durable as Achilles

20th level fighters are already like that. A fighter with strength boosted to 26 can toss around boulders like the best of the Iliad. The problem is that it doesn't really remove the core problem of the ancient lich being 400ft up in the air.

Passive bonuses will never solve the mundane problem. We need new active abilities. Tome of Battle/4e Powers do a great job, but they tend to be very "gamist" solutions. Which is great if that's your playstyle, but can clash with people of a more "Narrativist" bent.

I always thought that "Weapons of Legacy" was an unrealized solution to this problem. Namely, let the fighter add new and interesting abilities to their weapons as the game goes on. Or even access weapon abilities that others can't.

For example, in the hands of a barbarian a great axe is just d12 on a hit. A fighter though, can use the momentum to knock the opponent into an adjacent square, perhaps triggering an AoO in the process. Sling bullets have a chance of stunning. Spears can be used to stop an opponent's movement (jab at the eyes) etc.

Or even when magic is involved, fighters should be able to get more out of them because of their attunement with them. A "Seeking" (or whatever the 5e equivalent is) javelin can still be blocked or deflected. For fighters, no magical or physical barrier can block it as long as the opponent is within range.

[Seppo87]

Passive bonuses will never solve the mundane problem. We need new active abilities.
In my humle opinion, I believe that all mundanes need is the ability to neutralize "I-win button"s

Example: forcecage
Solution: Iron Heart Surge (RAW, not RAI), Legendary Dreadnought, or whatever homebrew.
You get out the forcecage and have a chance at attacking the caster.

Example (shonen stuff): Gotenks and Piccolo lock Majin Bu into an alternate dimension. Majin Bu transforms Vegetto inyo a candy
Solution: Scream really hard, a portal will be opened. Keep fighting as a candy, you're still strong enough to win.

I-win buttons are, no matter what, bad design.
That's why "I don't lose anyway" options are okay. They solve a problem.

I-win buttons are okay for casters, as long mundanes have "I don't lose anyway" options available

[obryn]

In my humle opinion, I believe that all mundanes need is the ability to neutralize "I-win button"s

Example: forcecage
Solution: Iron Heart Surge (RAW, not RAI), Legendary Dreadnought, or whatever homebrew.
You get out the forcecage and have a chance at attacking the caster.

Example (shonen stuff): Gotenks and Piccolo lock Majin Bu into an alternate dimension. Majin Bu transforms Vegetto inyo a candy
Solution: Scream really hard, a portal will be opened. Keep fighting as a candy, you're still strong enough to win.

I-win buttons are, no matter what, bad design.
That's why "I don't lose anyway" options are okay. They solve a problem.

I-win buttons are okay for casters, as long mundanes have "I don't lose anyway" options available
I posted it a while back, but I have no idea why they didn't just go with the natural end-point of the Fighter class and make them literally antimagic.

[EvilAnagram]

Wahahahahahahaaaahahhaaaahaaa....oh....oh wait... you were... you were serious weren't you? Looks like we have another person unfamiliar with 4E. Well in order to do what the warlord can do the Battlemaster would have to grant 2-3 buffs per turn, one of which could be healing or granting an ally an attack, but could also include granting or denying (dis)advantage, granting temp hp, granting resistance to attacks, etc...etc...

Actually, I just hadn't read the Battle Master rules very closely. 4e was my first system, and I ran an extremely successful Warlord. If you had read further, I looked back over the Battle Master and agreed that it sucks.

[Falka]

It's a game; the amount of time the Wizard spent in apprenticeship is hardly meaningful at the game table.

Then why do Wizards have almost half the HPs that a Fighter have? If your class' background doesn't mean anything, shouldn't we all have similar AC, HP and BAB values?

Why can't a Fighter learn, let's say, Evasion? He should be able to learn it if he trains hard, right?

You'll probably say: "well, Rogue fits another archetype, so his features make sense on him". The Fighter is supposed to be good at stabbing things and taking punishment. And he is. So what's exactly the problem? That you'd like that his archetype became Kratos, the God of War? Well, he's not a Fighter anymore. He's a demigod.

And btw, as we mention Kratos, he has some -craptastic- magic items. Hercules' gauntlets give him super strength, he has the wings of a goddess to fly, the boots of a god that give him superspeed, etc. So, he -is- using magic to do extraordinary stuff, even if it's in the form of magic items. He doesn't "break" reality in a sense that he can't do things that defy physics by himself, like, lifting a titan and tossing him to the stratosphere.

Why does it seem hard for people to translate this to D&D? 5e items are actually much more "God-of-War" like as in, they give noticeable boosts rather than small minor tweaks that serve as a sort of level scaling. Pick some Gauntlets of Ogre Power and suddenly you gain 19 Strength. I believe that a Storm Giant's Belt gave something like 26 Strength. Admittedly, some may think that a DM isn't obliged to give magic items to a Fighter to 'balance him out', but if you really want 'power democracy', the mundanes need to get a magic item or two. After all, the Wizard -is- using magic all day.


I don't try to ruin anything. I look at the facts available and then make a determination based on those facts. I then change that determination when new facts are available.

I'm sure that "bwahahahaahahahaha, are you serious" remarks really make up for a constructive debate... If you treat people like idiots, don't expect to be taken seriously by them shortly after. You may think that your logic is sound and that you are terribly smart, but you clearly aren't proficient with basic social interaction (even if people are stupid, don't make them feel stupid or don't treat them like they're stupid if you want to convince them of something) .

[Falka]

Like Epic level stuff where someone can be as strong as Heracles

Heracles and other Greek heroes, according to mythology, had magic items and artifacts that boosted their talents. Heracles would be the equivalent of a Champion that starts with 18 Strength and gets a ****-ton of magic items while he adventures. See below.


Of course Wizards rely on magic everything, that's their class feature. I'm not saying take away the thing that makes it special, just make it less powerful. Your example seems akin to saying to a fighter, Your martial skill makes you dependent on it's usage you count on it and start to rely on it to solve everything. Well no ****.

If you make wielding magic the same as wielding a sword, nobody would bother studying magic. At least, I wouldn't. What's the point of doing something that is harder that gives the same result with another training that less smart (or talented) people can do?

The difference between a Wizard and a Fighter is that the former relies on a mystical power, and there are ways of stripping him his source. A Fighter can still pick a rusted weapon, use his fists... Etc. They are physically capable of interacting with the world around them. Chain a wizard, steal his spellbook or make him fight a Nishruu, a Rakshasa or make him fall in an anti-magic trap. Hubris is the fatal sin for Wizards and DMs should always challenge them with things like these. And exactly in those moments, mundanes shine.

[Inevitability]

The difference between a Wizard and a Fighter is that the former relies on a mystical power, and there are ways of stripping him his source. A Fighter can still pick a rusted weapon, use his fists... Etc. They are physically capable of interacting with the world around them. Chain a wizard, steal his spellbook or make him fight a Nishruu, a Rakshasa or make him fall in an anti-magic trap. Hubris is the fatal sin for Wizards and DMs should always challenge them with things like these. And exactly in those moments, mundanes shine.

No, DM's shouldn't challenge them with 'things like these', because this is not a challenge anymore. This is a situation where nothing short of DM fiat will let you participate. The term 'challenge' implies that you can beat it.

I agree that wizards are strong. However, that does not mean they should be made unable to do anything.

[Falka]

No, DM's shouldn't challenge them with 'things like these', because this is not a challenge anymore. This is a situation where nothing short of DM fiat will let you participate. The term 'challenge' implies that you can beat it.

I agree that wizards are strong. However, that does not mean they should be made unable to do anything.

D&D is a cooperative game. Why shouldn't there be challenges that a Wizard as an individual can't beat? Mundane characters can fight a Nishruu and Rakshasas are awesome as manipulative BBEG that aren't vulnerable to low level magic cheese.

Just like I don't want Fighters to become Naruto, I think it's reasonable to put sometimes a Wizard in a pinch. Those monsters are designed as puzzles that you can't just blow up to beat. How is that a bad thing?

[Anonymouswizard]

But then comparing 5E to 4E for tactical mythical fun is also a joke.

Okay, I haven't had the chance to try out 4e (all my groups have been 3.5 fanatics), but I just don't understand how it's play style is mythical. I also don't have 5e yet, but that's because there's no game stores near where I live. But From what I've seen of it, 4e does not have a mythical style. 4e seems to move more towards the modern fiction/anime style, where everybody is moving around and throwing flashy moves at anything.

The mythology I read wasn't quite like that. There were heroes who were significantly more powerful than the average person, but even then they were closer to 5e fighters than 4e fighters. For the purpose of argument, I'm going to assume that, like in 3.5, people in the real world don't get past about level 5/6.

Heracles, I agree with the idea that he was a champion with 18 strength, maybe an increased strength cap of 21 or 22 from a race or background. Let's put him at a rough level 0f 8-10, going by the logic of '6 is the peak human maximum, and Heracles was noticeable better than a human'.

Perseus? Despite being a demigod he wasn't innately better than a normal person, and most of his victories I can remember can from either magic items (mirror of polish) or cunning. I'd peg him as a champion of level 4-6, with all stats in the 12-14 range, except for a 15 in intelligence. He was then granted a trio of rare magic items with specific effects.

Going out of classical mythology, what about king Arthur? He had strength greater than the average person to allow him to pull a sword, but his tales never depict him as superhuman. His knowledge of tactics was never specified, but I always took him to be more inspiring than tactical, and so a 3e Marshal would work well. In 5e he could be either a champion or battlemaster, at about level 5/6, and his only incredible stat being a 16 in strength. Excalibur would be a high level magic item that he was given.

CuChullain is an interesting case. He's the only mythological hero I know of specifically stated to beat armies by himself, but I'll admit that my knowledge of mythology is limited. His constitution is probably 18, with another ability allowing him advantage on saves against poison, but other than that the main parts seem to be his Warp-Spasm (read: rage), and insane skill. Let's peg him at level 10, allowing him to take down a horde of level 1 soldiers, and make that fighter 8/barbarian 2 so he can have his warp-spasm. Let's make him a battlemaster, but restrict him to manoeuvres that increase his personal prowess, instead of supporting others.

From this, I would really like to know how 4e is more mythic than 5e is. Myths have large heroes, but their deeds half the time are from being as cunning as a fox while still being fighters. The other half the time they do perform superhuman feats, but more along the lines of a warblade focusing on diamond mind and iron heart. The modern novel I've read reflecting mythology the most is Neverwhere, where the heroes have a teleportation-focused mage, a skilled warrior, and a cunning scoundrel, but none of them really do anything large. Like mythology, the meaning behind their actions is more important.

My conclusion is that no edition of D&D can be called mythic, due to the magic being too powerful and the mundanes just falling short (or far over for 4e) of the required level at release. However I am not the best versed in either half, so can you please explain to me how 4e is mythic.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for review.