D&D 5.5 (or maybe 6e...)

[ThermalSlapShot]

D&D is becoming less and less about martials and casters doing stuff side by side. Casters can now bulk up and do enough damage to keep up with the monsters of the game at-will. We also see how more and more of the martials gaining easy access to casting (though not very good casting) and making partial casters (like the paladin) more spell friendly.

Since wotc will never want to put martials on even footing again due to their aparent "non-magic = badwrognfun" mentality I have a suggestion and a speculation.

WotC/D&D wants to make everyone magic. Just make everything special magic or be explained through the easy way or the way that is simple to hand wave. So since wotc/D&D is walking down this path my suggestion is to embrace it. And my speculation is that eventually wotc/D&D WILL embrace it head on.

Instead of getting the game we could have where martials and casters are on even footing, we will just get a game with NO MARTIALS.

What we will eventually get is a game set around three casting systems.

We will have the traditional Arcane Magic and Divine Magic. Both of these are similar for the most part but also vastly different in fluff. One has creatures plucking the energy of the weave by themselves and making magic happen. The other has deity level beings granting spells to lesser beings in the form of spells.

The third? The third is Psionics.

This will be the creation of abilities that come directly from the lesser being (or any being) themselves with no outside influence.

Psionics will replace martials. And really, with the way D&D wants to be, they really should.

So what we could is the following.

Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard
Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger
Psion, Soulnife, Wilder, Psychic Warrior

Want to make a soldier that uses heavy armor and weapons? Psychic Warrior (or Soulknife) with specific power selection that only augment yourself how you see your soldier. No arcane magic, no cleric fluff, no paladin hang ups, everything you can do comes directly from yourself and not from the weave or from some higher power.

Crazy yes, but it works so damn well with how D&D is progressing and how the developers want the game to run.

But this is just a theory, a ... Wait can I get in trouble for spouting someone else's line? :smalltongue:

[coredump]

Your entire post is based on several assumptions that you state as fact, which I don't think are true.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Your entire post is based on several assumptions that you state as fact, which I don't think are true.

Between the unfair rulings on magic versus martial (whirlwind versus eldritch blast for example) and the fact that martials are being diluted into magic more and more , from what I see, all of this is true.

Martials are so closely connected to magic, even when they aren't magic, that it is leading to the elimination of martials.

To be a barbarian that doesn't kill yourself or make yourself suck? Totem barbarian who has access to magic.

Fighter has the Eldritch Knight magic subclass but also has the Battlemaster whose mechanics works more like a caster than ever before. Seriously, you can scare people or disarm people X/short rest... What the hell is that? That isn't being martial, that is having a short rest spell mechanic. Your at-will abilities are so damn mundane that it boils down to *i move and hit* and *i move and hit harder/more*.

The Rogue is the most pure martial character we have, they do get Arcane Trickster pretty easy though whereas before it wouldn't have been so easy.

All the other partial casters are just that, partial casters and not partial martial. Mainly because partial martial rhymes but also because a lot of their sweet spot abilities come from magic. In 3e you had to wait longer to gain your magic and in 4e the Ranger wasn't magic at all.

EDITED

And might I say... I'm on board with this. I'm ok with D&D diluting and getting rid of the martial hero in place of a martial that is psionic.

Bring it on.

[SharkForce]

eh, let's not go crazy here.

casters do not have equal damage to martials at-will, at least not as a rule. certain casters can get up there, but martials genuinely do have better damage-dealing capabilities, at least against single targets. even the high-damage casters don't have remotely the amount of reliability that martials get in their damage.

[ThermalSlapShot]

eh, let's not go crazy here.

casters do not have equal damage to martials at-will, at least not as a rule. certain casters can get up there, but martials genuinely do have better damage-dealing capabilities, at least against single targets. even the high-damage casters don't have remotely the amount of reliability that martials get in their damage.

You don't have to equal to damage of the martials.

The casters only have to keep up with the HP of the creatures in the game. They do that quite well between blasters, nova, and cleric/paladins running around. Plus they don't really need to always keep up with HP when they have all these other abilities that get around HP*.


Edited


Like avoiding a fight all together... Arcane Eye is a fantastic spell that every wizard worth their salt should have.

[pwykersotz]

Your entire post is based on several assumptions that you state as fact, which I don't think are true.

Quoted for truth.

[Ralanr]

So you're speculating that they'll replace the fantasy staple of the martial hero, with psychic powers. Psychic powers that are very rare in fluff with fantasy.

I'm getting that you seem to love psionics, but I don't think their going to replace martials. I don't think anything will replace martials, just like nothing will replace arcane magic and divine magic.

[EvanescentHero]

And if someone doesn't want to use magic, they're just **** outta luck? They're forced to use psionics, a niche system that isn't important enough to be in the core books? That oughta go over great.

[ThermalSlapShot]

And if someone doesn't want to use magic, they're just **** outta luck? They're forced to use psionics, a niche system that isn't important enough to be in the core books? That oughta go over great.

That's pretty much hq it is now. You either use magic or be mundane.

You will still have your armored warriors with weapons, Soul knife, Psychic Warrior, Cleric, Paladin, and whatever else... But now no one will be out of luck when they want to be anything more than mundane.

And the fluff of Psionics works perfectly with D&D, anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves.

[Elbeyon]

Pathfinder has so many partial casters. It's great. Everyone can have magic while be a martial character. Martial casters practically are the new mundane (at least the way my groups play).

[Wartex1]

No.

As much as I enjoy Psionics, no. Removing mundanes would be a really bad idea. It alienates everyone who wants to play a mundane and completely separates itself from DnD as a whole, which has always had a heavy focus of mundanes working alongside magic users. We even have the quartet that's half-mundane (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard).

[Elbeyon]

People may not realize it but they want an unbalanced game. They want casters to be able to do things that a mundane character can not. The mechanical difference between mundanes and casters that they want makes balance impossible. They want magic to be better and mundanes incapable of copying magical level feats. They might complain about the game being unbalanced from time to time, but they wouldn't change anything about it.

[Ralanr]

That's pretty much hq it is now. You either use magic or be mundane.

You will still have your armored warriors with weapons, Soul knife, Psychic Warrior, Cleric, Paladin, and whatever else... But now no one will be out of luck when they want to be anything more than mundane.

And the fluff of Psionics works perfectly with D&D, anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves.

You say mundane like it's a bad thing. Some people like playing mundane characters and doing ridiculous things with them. When psionics in 5e get released, the people who want to play them will get that option.

Also, I would like to apologize for my aggression towards you earlier. I realize I seem to be throwing around the word psionics as negatively as you seem to throw the word mundane. It's probably really aggravating to see people bash the kind of playstyle you like over and over. I know it is for me when people mock martials.

You enjoy mental powers, that's all fine and dandy. I don't think mental powers fit into fantasy fluff-wise enough to become a staple in d&d. And I'm just not a fan of psychic powers, you can show me that they're the most powerful thing in the damn universe and I won't care. I like playing a martial, I find myself more creative when playing a martial than when I play a caster. As a caster I obsess over my limited amount of spells, the limits of what I can do, and when to use them. As a martial I don't have to worry about my limits because I don't really see many debilitating ones. I've found myself being pretty damn good at improvising.

One mundane example was when my barb was in the preliminary rounds of a fighting tournament. My opponent was stronger than me when it came to weapon damage and he could outlast me. Everyone else in the group who fought him (we used the same stats for different people who were unlucky enough to roll him) lost, aside from the Eldrich knight (the other two who fought him was a fighter 2/rogue 2 and a paladin 5). You know how I won? I removed my opponents advantage (disarmed him).

Simple solution right? Not creative at all? No one bothered to consider it.

Psionics are all fine and dandy, and maybe future D&D will give supernatural abilities to all classes. But I don't think psions will ever replace martials.

Even the mundane can be special.

[Wartex1]

If people want to have a system where being magical is all there is to be far above the mundane, then perhaps they should try another system that revolves around that concept?

[coredump]

Between the unfair rulings on magic versus martial (whirlwind versus eldritch blast for example) and the fact that martials are being diluted into magic more and more , from what I see, all of this is true.

Martials are so closely connected to magic, even when they aren't magic, that it is leading to the elimination of martials.

To be a barbarian that doesn't kill yourself or make yourself suck? Totem barbarian who has access to magic.

Fighter has the Eldritch Knight magic subclass but also has the Battlemaster whose mechanics works more like a caster than ever before. Seriously, you can scare people or disarm people X/short rest... What the hell is that? That isn't being martial, that is having a short rest spell mechanic. Your at-will abilities are so damn mundane that it boils down to *i move and hit* and *i move and hit harder/more*.

The Rogue is the most pure martial character we have, they do get Arcane Trickster pretty easy though whereas before it wouldn't have been so easy.

All the other partial casters are just that, partial casters and not partial martial. Mainly because partial martial rhymes but also because a lot of their sweet spot abilities come from magic. In 3e you had to wait longer to gain your magic and in 4e the Ranger wasn't magic at all.

.
And this just emphasizes my point. Pretty much every one of your paragraphs makes an assertion as factual.... that I don't agree is true. Its okay to have a different opinion, just don't be surprised when others don't agree with you. And if you are basing conclusions on what I consider false premise, well.....

[Ashrym]

Since wotc will never want to put martials on even footing again due to their aparent "non-magic = badwrognfun" mentality I have a suggestion and a speculation.

WotC/D&D wants to make everyone magic. Just make everything special magic or be explained through the easy way or the way that is simple to hand wave. So since wotc/D&D is walking down this path my suggestion is to embrace it. And my speculation is that eventually wotc/D&D WILL embrace it head on.

[U][I]Instead of getting the game we could have where martials and casters are on even footing, we will just get a game with NO MARTIALS.

WotC gave us nonmagic options so we can play them and have fun. The issue is you don't seem to want us to have fun with them because you keep commenting in post after post and thread after thread to complain about nonmagic and want to add magical abilities to these classes even if you change the name of the magic used.

If you want a warrior concept with magical abilities you have various degrees available in eldritch knights, paladins, monks, arcane tricksters, rangers, totem barbarians, valor bards, blade warlocks, magic initiate and ritual caster feats, and multiclassing options.

You aren't trying to create concepts or options. You are ignoring the fact such concepts exist and the mechanics to create them, and you are trying to take existing concepts away from other players who want them.

The only person who thinks nonmagic is "badwrongfun" is you.

[djreynolds]

I don't wish to date myself, but I've been playing since elf's were characters and not a race.
I enjoy playing both characters, muggles (mundane is a flavorless term) and magic users and multi-classing them.
Psionics are cool, but really should be limited because it changes the concept of fantasy, into something too reality based. The old Star Wars vs Star Trek debate. See how midi-chlorians ruined the fantasy.
Psionics are used already with monks and had been used with kensai and with ki and ki points.
Barbarians and beserkers were touched by the gods.
Fighters love magic weapons and armor and clerics to heal them.
Rogues loves magic items and getting blown up by them.

But this discussion is more about how the game mechanics have changed and appear to act like spells. At will powers were introduced because of our PC counterparts. Its tough to keep track of abilities and uses without creating measurable values. Weapon master can so many times a day can cause max damage. Wizards have spells. A lot of 4 was created to bring back gamers who left to play other systems, but in doing so made fighters seem like casters. Second wind, I didn't know fighter could heal themselves and why doesn't everyone get this ability if fighters are mundane then so should second wind be.

I always thought wizards were like Raisltin, and paid for there manipulation of magic which is not a natural thing and were given low hit die and mundane physical abilities to simulate that payment to cast magic. Clerics are mouth pieces of the gods and should show signs of wear from that connection.

And that is the problem. Wizards now have access to higher hit points, one attack at least equal to that of a martial character, unlimited cantrips that scale well and stay relevant and are not a last ditch spell anymore, they get armor usage. I think this would make any other character feel mundane. Us muggles are now fidgety because we are only meat shields and baggage carriers. Clerics are no longer needed cause everyone can heal as well as they do. As sorcerer can stealth as well as rogue. I like D&D because the of grittiness feel of it.

If everyone can cast magic than who will play a wizard. It used too be tough to play achieve and become a high level wizard and everyone feared you. Jarlaxle is scared of Gromph, as are his sisters because he possess something that is only his. Wizards are often sought out in combat at "the priority"

D&D 5e is better than 4 because it brought back the theater of the mind of the original game and the easy math of 3.5, but the at will powers of 4 makes fighter abilities seem magical, though they are only for game mechanics. Take away all this casting from the other classes. If you want to cast spells then you should multiclass. Make classes dependent on one another again.

[Dralnu]

Yeah, no.

Lots of people like being non-magical characters and many fan-favorite fantasy heroes are non-magical. Fighters/Barbarians/Rogues will never be removed from D&D because it would alienate a huge portion of the playerbase. See 4e on the financial results of alienating the playerbase and making fundamental changes to the brand.

[djreynolds]

Yeah, no.

Lots of people like being non-magical characters and many fan-favorite fantasy heroes are non-magical. Fighters/Barbarians/Rogues will never be removed from D&D because it would alienate a huge portion of the playerbase. See 4e on the financial results of alienating the playerbase and making fundamental changes to the brand.

Agree on all points, I like playing a fighter. I like to imagine me on the battlefield. And you need someone in the party with that simple mentality and practicality. I like the rogue and the flavor if the barbarian makes me feel like Conan. I just need sword and bad guy and my wits.

[EvanescentHero]

That's pretty much hq it is now. You either use magic or be mundane.

You will still have your armored warriors with weapons, Soul knife, Psychic Warrior, Cleric, Paladin, and whatever else... But now no one will be out of luck when they want to be anything more than mundane.

And the fluff of Psionics works perfectly with D&D, anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves.

Read my post again. Your proposed method here allows for no purely martial characters, forcing everyone to play some sort of magic even if they don't want to. Someone who wants to play a Champion can't when by design, every character is given magic of some sort. Also, every single class in 5e has a magical archetype, meaning that even martial characters can be "more than mundane" if they want.

Additionally, I said nothing about the fluff of psionics. I agree that when the Far Realms and horrifying tentacled Lovecraftian monsters are a part of the base game, psionics have a place. But it's a simple fact that every edition thus far has deemed them either too unimportant, too different, or too niche to be a part of the core rulebooks. I don't see that changing, and if it does, it certainly won't be by cutting out and alienating a group that, whether or not you choose to accept it, likes to play purely martial characters.

[Dimolyth]

Nesserarity of presence of classes are archetypes (not in-game terms for subclasses, but the literature ones).
You could not have any variant of D&D without fighter. That will shake all existing settings, utterly destroying "adventure" as we have it now. Just try to imagine the Brotherhood of the Ring, or Conan the Barbarian adventuring party without martials.
WoTC even made Unearthed Arcana to say that "our ranger could be Aragorn", because popularity of D&D is based on popularity of archetypical fantasy culture. And that is the reason, why wizards are so powerful in D&D - because they are that awesome in fantasy culture - books, movies, TV-series, whatever.
And then, there is D&D tradition. Make a dwarf to be a paladin, or a cleric, or a psychic warrior, or a monk istead of strict fighter - and you will loose 40% of dwarf-loving auditory.

The whole of "magic beats non-magic" thing is based on GMing and RPing problems, not "WoTC developpement of the game".

[j_spencer93]

Reading things like this make me wonder what people are smoking.

[PotatoGolem]

Caster/Martial balance is much better now than it was in 3.5, when a Cleric was a better fighter than a Fighter. So you're just flat wrong about D&D being less and less about martials and WOTC taking your ability to play martials away. Honestly, I think you're just trolling, but on the off-chance that you're not, consider that most people don't play high-TO, high-level games. My game group and I read these boards, but we very rarely play full-optimized builds, and from talking to other game groups that seems to be common. 20-level theorycrafting is fine, but in most real games I don't think there's a huge disparity between the classes. I've seen plenty of people play martials and enjoy them, and most don't feel that they're being persecuted by WOTC.

[ProphetSword]

Instead of getting the game we could have where martials and casters are on even footing


We got that game already. It was called 4th Edition. And it was hated by a lot of people.



Crazy yes, but it works so damn well with how D&D is progressing and how the developers want the game to run.


Source?

[Warwick]

We got that game already. It was called 4th Edition. And it was hated by a lot of people.

Do you really think that was because it put casters and martials on even footing as opposed to one of it's myriad other problems.

[EvanescentHero]

Do you really think that was because it put casters and martials on even footing as opposed to one of it's myriad other problems.

I'm glad the balance was really good in that edition, but the way the game and characters felt ruined it for me. Of course, entirely cutting martial characters from the game would end up just as bad if not worse.

[Warwick]

WotC isn't going to cut martials. They're too popular, and DnD is a heroic fantasy game. Martial heroes are at the heart of heroic fantasy. In future editions, they may (though I think it unlikely) amend them so you can no longer pretend that a mundane action hero is a high level character concept and require you to start taking abilities that are at least de facto supernatural, but they'll stick around in some form. Part of the problem is that a lot of the pushback against level-appropriate abilities for high-level martials comes from players who dislike the notion of non-magical characters getting 'animu' or otherwise over-the-top abilities because it doesn't feel right.

[Inevitability]

You are making statements I personally disagree with, but I can see making sense to you.

However, the problem is that WotC will never, ever, remove martial classes from D&D, not even if 80% of its buyers asked them to. Why? Because they are trying to keep things at least somewhat resembling the original game. The existence of fighters and rogues is a major part of that.

The whole 'mundane becomes magical' phenomenon you state is the simple result of some people wanting to play arcane tricksters or eldritch knights in 3.5, which was enough reason to make such characters easier to build. Besides, if anything, mundanes have gotten more mundane in 5e. Take a look at how they were in 4th edition.

[Ralanr]

WotC isn't going to cut martials. They're too popular, and DnD is a heroic fantasy game. Martial heroes are at the heart of heroic fantasy. In future editions, they may (though I think it unlikely) amend them so you can no longer pretend that a mundane action hero is a high level character concept and require you to start taking abilities that are at least de facto supernatural, but they'll stick around in some form. Part of the problem is that a lot of the pushback against level-appropriate abilities for high-level martials comes from players who dislike the notion of non-magical characters getting 'animu' or otherwise over-the-top abilities because it doesn't feel right.

I can see martials becoming supernatural at high level. Heck that's what I kinda expect.

[Cazero]

Psionic is more than strength of will, it is the ability to manifest it outside of the self. Telepathy, telekinesis and magic replication are the most obvious examples.

And when I make a fighter, I don't want any of those crap. They turn the battle-hardened fighter with supernatural stamina and idomitable will coming from practice alone into some kind of wimp with 'psychic' written on the forehead. No thank you, I'd rather stick to my 'mundane' martial whose battle experience alone makes him better at movement prediction than any amount of mind reading.

True badasses are pure martials. Accept no substitutes.

[Ashrym]

Do you really think that was because it put casters and martials on even footing as opposed to one of it's myriad other problems.

I don't think it was any more balanced than 5e is. It broke down at higher levels and also required quite a bit of system mastery. The only difference was parallel progression for ability progression and that's actually irrelevant to the individual strength of powers available within that progression. Classes continued to perform functionally different like we have now and had prior. It was really just a different approach to the same ends.

I didn't like the power structure, need to forget forget abilities to gain better ones (that was just lame), and the overfocus on combat that became like playing a strategy game instead of an RPG.

There were some good things that came from 4e too.

Non-magical healing was something some players wanted that gave us things like the healer feat, hit dice healing, inspiring leader, and overnight healing but updated to match older views because it's more controlled and easily adjustable to match various preferences.

5e kept 4e's static spell damage without caster level auto-scaling, feats that added some other class abilities without needing to multi-class (I prefer that to MC, personally), at-will powers so a PC can continue with a certain archetype without running out of gas, and ritual casting.

They gave fighter options even if I think the implementation was far worse than current complaints about beastmaster companion action use. (aside: requiring attention to actively control a beast isn't unreasonable; stopping the last command pushes it). Codified powers for a fighter should have been learning a weapon proficiency and opening up a list of feats that could be learned with that weapon if such an approach was used. As it is, the idea lead us to fighters with skill options, battlemaster maneuvers, and interesting non-combat feats to build more complex options.

4e gave us quite a bit of tactical options that I think went overboard but that type of gameplay can be fun and we have more options in 5e along similar lines than it first appears; they simply aren't explicitly tagged as push, pull, slide.

Edition bias, whether a fan or not a fan, isn't sound reasoning any more than caster bias is.

What I find really ironic is wizards were controllers, which wasn't that we'll defined but focused on killing weak monsters and applying status effects so was considered weaker in 4e, but 5e wizards focus on area damage and status effects and somehow the same standard functionality is unfair in 5e. The class just isn't that different.

Fighter comments are just as ironic. Second wind is somehow bad in 5e as a short rest mechanic when 4e had a similar ability but the difference was it was a utility and used daily requiring a higher level. 4e codified powers did things like selecting a power that does 3[W]+STR mod damage to a target or 2[W]+STR mod damage plus push to a target or [W]+STR mod to multiple targets where a fighter would need to choose one of those powers. Players will claim that was good because those were codified powers a player selected to give choices but 5e does the exact same thing without requiring a selection; the fighter just has all 3 options at 11th level by choosing what he does with each attack -- codification was a restriction and not a benefit in comparison.

Whenever I see a "but in 4e" comment I see that as too much focus on differences and a disconnect in understanding the mechanics that are the similar, essentially missing the trees through the forest. All that person needs to do is list out permutations of abilities and at what level they become possible, give them an interesting name, and then the list is larger than it thinks, and is codified to similar powers.

[ProphetSword]

Do you really think that was because it put casters and martials on even footing as opposed to one of it's myriad other problems.

I'm sure it was a combination of problems. But one of the arguments I heard a lot was that all the characters felt the same. The martials in that game had abilities that worked exactly the same as the spells that the casters had in a lot of cases (at least when it came to damage).

Only point I was trying to make is that there was already an edition where they were on somewhat equal footing...and nobody liked that edition. And that was one of the many reasons why.

[zinycor]

Sorry but No, as long as DnD is DnD there will be fighters, no matter how Underpowered you hink they are. they don't only exist on DnD they exist on every RPG, because every RPG has that guy who only hits things.

The mechanics could change, and maybe in the future the mechanics for a fighter will be very different from what we have now, but fighters will always exist in one way or another

[Mechaviking]

That´s odd, the system to which you refer already exists it was published almost more than twenty years ago and is called Earthdawn, there everybody has magic, even the fighter who channels it directly into his body like a monk/adept. It was based on Shadowrun fluff if I am not mistaken.

I´ve read some of the 1st edition books and found out that the fighter there was basically a superman: In 1e dumping weapon profs into your weapon increased it´s damage die/dice gave it more special abilities(parry and such) as well as better speed factor and whatnot. The most awesome ability was the smash: The smash was an attack at -5(all of your attack bonus at 9th level I think) you forfeited initiative(went last) but you doubled your damage and got to add your strength score(all of it not just the bonus) post multiplier. That sounds like an awesome fighter ability to me and was probably what influenced power attack(back then) and gwm in this system(probably).

Fighters crashed in 2e and have yet to recover fully imo.

Having played to level 14 I can say that a tailored fighter(with marksman/gwm and built around it), can operate in the relative damage area of unoverthought non-evoker wizards(haven´t seen higher level play with other classes), but noncombat versatility and such is very much close to zero(I managed to slow down a band of skiing snow rangers with some arrows and battlemaster knockdowns), and that makes me kinda sad, it´s not like extra ribbons or skill profs or something I can´t think of right now would have unbalanced anything.

[SharkForce]

everyone basically becoming supernaturally good at what they do sounds like a good idea to me. pure damage-dealers should also develop some more utility of some sort, some ability to interact with the game world in a superior way to other classes that isn't just stabbing things (or smashing things, or slicing things).

but i wouldn't call it psionics. i'd just be like "wow, that thief is such a master of stealth that he can hide from death" as a ribbon ability, or "that fighter has withstood so many spells that his mind and body are nearly invulnerable to the direct application of it".

and i would want to add options like that to cover utility as well.

i think it's a good idea to include some obviously supernatural options, but i also think it's important to offer lots of options that are not overtly supernatural.

but one way or the other, i don't think it would be a good idea to remove the fighter. change the mechanics of it, sure. but ultimately, you're going to need some guy who is a skilled weapon user focused on combat that is called a fighter, and you're going to need it to look like that guy is not inherently magical.

edit: oh, and fighters are pretty solid in 2e, assuming you're talking AD&D. as you gain levels, fighters got really good saving throws in every category, and their damage could get *really* crazy. they still had not much utility, but their damage and AC could get really nuts with some decent gear, and were absolutely worth spending your spells to buff because they could just wreck your enemies way better than you could.

it looks crazy when you start noticing all these 2e spells with fairly impressive-looking saving throw penalties, but then you start realizing that a -4 penalty still leaves a 15 HD monster shrugging off your spells to no effect uncomfortably often. something like finger of death sounds amazing, but truthfully, by the time you get it, you're lucky if it works 1/5 of the time just from saving throws, never mind spell resistance or outright immunities.

you can get some pretty powerful spells, but i've never felt like a fighter is useless in 2e. their ability to alter the world is still lacking directly, but they really were beasts in combat.

if i was to name a class that i felt really struggled in 2e, it would probably be the thief.

[EggKookoo]

At risk of hijacking the thread, my own prediction for post-5e will be the opposite. The game might come back down to earth a bit and consolidate a lot of the caster classes to make room for more versatile melee classes and greater overall utility.

I'm not basing this on anything except the gut feeling that to thrive, a tabletop RPG has to distinguish itself from what computer games are doing, and computer games tend to emphasize style and flash. 5e's emphasis on DM rulings is an example of this kind of thinking.

[Mechaviking]

Hmm speaking of which the Barbarian could really have used a smash or a variation of it instead of the ****ty extra way to confined to greataxe critical dice. The smash could have been a good way to make the Barbarian different from fighter by giving him 1 good wallop at level 11+(as opposed to multiple attacks), and instead of extra critical dice you could just add some nifty but useful abilites to the smash(ignoring resistance, adding the strength mod. again, have it hit a small cone and maybe adding extra dice).

In that sense the fighter could have been the most universally capable warrior(more attacks give flexibility to attack more opponents or pour on the damage)
Barbarian the single target monster(1 crippling attack each turn or the regular 2 when the big one isn´t needed)
Ranger fighting off entire armies by himself(loads of aoe´s with 2 attacks to deal with big threats)
Paladin is a sortof mix between Barbarian and ranger but requiring resource management to be able to equal one or the other(plus his undeniable support benefits)

Hopefully sometime later...

The coolest feature fighter got in second edition was the planetouched feature in the point buy version of the classes in 2e where you didn´t need magical weapons to damage creatures. I somewhat remember Aasimar with point buy being a beast of a race and coupling it with fighter made a badass "normal" of sorts.

[Ralanr]

Hmm speaking of which the Barbarian could really have used a smash or a variation of it instead of the ****ty extra way to confined to greataxe critical dice. The smash could have been a good way to make the Barbarian different from fighter by giving him 1 good wallop at level 11+(as opposed to multiple attacks), and instead of extra critical dice you could just add some nifty but useful abilites to the smash(ignoring resistance, adding the strength mod. again, have it hit a small cone and maybe adding extra dice).

In that sense the fighter could have been the most universally capable warrior(more attacks give flexibility to attack more opponents or pour on the damage)
Barbarian the single target monster(1 crippling attack each turn or the regular 2 when the big one isn´t needed)
Ranger fighting off entire armies by himself(loads of aoe´s with 2 attacks to deal with big threats)
Paladin is a sortof mix between Barbarian and ranger but requiring resource management to be able to equal one or the other(plus his undeniable support benefits)

Hopefully sometime later...

The coolest feature fighter got in second edition was the planetouched feature in the point buy version of the classes in 2e where you didn´t need magical weapons to damage creatures. I somewhat remember Aasimar with point buy being a beast of a race and coupling it with fighter made a badass "normal" of sorts.

Smash on a barbarian does sound better than brutal critical. I really dislike the ability, it's just not there most of the time. Granted it's great when it happens, but I don't actively hope for it.

[JAL_1138]

everyone basically becoming supernaturally good at what they do sounds like a good idea to me. pure damage-dealers should also develop some more utility of some sort, some ability to interact with the game world in a superior way to other classes that isn't just stabbing things (or smashing things, or slicing things).

but i wouldn't call it psionics. i'd just be like "wow, that thief is such a master of stealth that he can hide from death" as a ribbon ability, or "that fighter has withstood so many spells that his mind and body are nearly invulnerable to the direct application of it".

and i would want to add options like that to cover utility as well.

i think it's a good idea to include some obviously supernatural options, but i also think it's important to offer lots of options that are not overtly supernatural.

but one way or the other, i don't think it would be a good idea to remove the fighter. change the mechanics of it, sure. but ultimately, you're going to need some guy who is a skilled weapon user focused on combat that is called a fighter, and you're going to need it to look like that guy is not inherently magical.

edit: oh, and fighters are pretty solid in 2e, assuming you're talking AD&D. as you gain levels, fighters got really good saving throws in every category, and their damage could get *really* crazy. they still had not much utility, but their damage and AC could get really nuts with some decent gear, and were absolutely worth spending your spells to buff because they could just wreck your enemies way better than you could.

it looks crazy when you start noticing all these 2e spells with fairly impressive-looking saving throw penalties, but then you start realizing that a -4 penalty still leaves a 15 HD monster shrugging off your spells to no effect uncomfortably often. something like finger of death sounds amazing, but truthfully, by the time you get it, you're lucky if it works 1/5 of the time just from saving throws, never mind spell resistance or outright immunities.

you can get some pretty powerful spells, but i've never felt like a fighter is useless in 2e. their ability to alter the world is still lacking directly, but they really were beasts in combat.

if i was to name a class that i felt really struggled in 2e, it would probably be the thief.

2e Thief had thief skills, decent magic item use, backstab which was virtually impossible to set up and only worked on the first attackin a combat if it worked at all, one attack, and crap for THAC0 and AC. At higher levels, your combat role was either stand back and plink with a ranged weapon or use a wand, and in everything but thief skills the bard was equal to or better than you.

The 2e fighter had to botch--completely botch, with a 1--to fail a save vs spell at 20. Their other saves (wands, death, poison, petrify, etc) were nuts too. While darts were broken, even a non-dart Fighter could chew up and spit out the Tarrasque in less than ten rounds, solo. Couldn't Wish it dead, but could shred it like feeding its MM page through a woodchipper.

[Person_Man]

So, Dark Sun?

[Easy_Lee]

I don't think classes need to all use magic. Just because WotC can't imagine a way for martials to accomplish impossible feats, a rogue becoming effectively invisible for example, does not mean that everyone needs magic.

Rather, I would prefer that every possible action one can accomplish via spell or ability be definined, and for each class to have an approximately equal number of said specialties. For example, wizards can throw AoE spells, so there should be some martial abilities capable of standing in for that. Whirlwind Attack and Volley don't currently fit the bill because their damage is far too low, which is part of the problem with the current system.

The problem currently is that so many actions, such as teleportation, Polymorph, creating walls of force, forcing enemies to do what you want them to (ex: Suggestion), controlling the weather and elements, finding things, creation, control, healing and restoring life, and so on are best handled by or are exclusive to magic. And wizards, having the largest selection of magic and no real limit to spells known, are thus capable of doing more (aka have more power to affect the plot) than anyone else. Martials, on the other hand, can deal damage, can sometimes take damage, and not a whole lot else. Martials are the armor and weapon, but casters are everything else.

And then there's warlocks, who can do a ton of things and can deal comparable damage to a martial with one spell. With a warlock and two other casters in a party, all you really need is a meat shield to be able to handle absolutely everything. On the other hand, a party of a monk, rogue, fighter, and barbarian are at the DM's mercy to give them what they need to solve uncanny problems.

[Shaofoo]

I don't think classes need to all use magic. Just because WotC can't imagine a way for martials to accomplish impossible feats, a rogue becoming effectively invisible for example, does not mean that everyone needs magic.

Rather, I would prefer that every possible action one can accomplish via spell or ability be definined, and for each class to have an approximately equal number of said specialties. For example, wizards can throw AoE spells, so there should be some martial abilities capable of standing in for that. Whirlwind Attack and Volley don't currently fit the bill because their damage is far too low, which is part of the problem with the current system.

Well do you have an answer to the Martial Controller debate that has plagued 4e? Not calling you out but I just wonder if you had something in mind cause if you can figure out your dillema then you will also have an answer to an interesting 4e mental problem as to why martial types can't be controllers.

[Wartex1]

Here's a way a martial could be a stand in for the various "Wall" spells.

Give him Polearm Master and some way to raise his number of Opportunity Attacks.

Martials could do area damage in ways of cleaving, firing multiple arrows at once for a cost, etc.

Martials can also do a lot of stuff that Wizards could do with magic if Martials just got higher skill bonuses. For "controlling" an enemy, you could intimidate him. A burly guy with a giant axe is probably scarier than a twig in some robes.

[Easy_Lee]

Well do you have an answer to the Martial Controller debate that has plagued 4e? Not calling you out but I just wonder if you had something in mind cause if you can figure out your dillema then you will also have an answer to an interesting 4e mental problem as to why martial types can't be controllers.

Stunning Strike is one example. Another could be a taunt mechanic that actually forces opponents to target the user, similar to what they have planned for swashbuckler but a save instead of a skill.

[Steampunkette]

5.5e? I definitely think we could use a rebalancing of high end spellcasting that narrows up some of the more broken spells.

As for martial characters I'd like to see a maneuver manual that adds tons of skill and weapon use variety that gives the martial characters some more options both in and out of combat.

I definitely think Psionics should have been part of the core rules, as well.

[Vogonjeltz]

Your entire post is based on several assumptions that you state as fact, which I don't think are true.

Agreed. I'd go so far as to say the opposite of the post is true, those classes reliant on many Long-rest mechanics (i.e. Spellcasters) are substantially weaker than the classes that benefit from many short-rest or always on mechanics. The power of any given long-rest ability is typically intended to be slightly more than a short/no rest...but it's not enough of a gap to make up for the many many repeated uses of the short/no rest abilities which easily overtake to provide great capability and output.


I can see martials becoming supernatural at high level. Heck that's what I kinda expect.

If you frame certain class abilities that way, that's exactly what we have (and bear in mind as per usual we haven't defined terms for martial):

Barbarian - Primal Champion (straight up breaks the ability score cap of mere mortals
Fighter - Extra Attack (3) (fights 4 times as fast as a normal human!), action surge (2) (Can supercharge to fight 8x as fast as a normal human), Indomitable (shrugs off attacks that would instantly kill a mortal).
Monk - Timeless Body (Doesn't eat or drink and can't be aged by magic, the thing that supposedly breaks the rules of reality...guess that's a big old lie.
Rogue - Stroke of Luck (basically a daily use of wish to re-roll and win.)

[Ralanr]

Agreed. I'd go so far as to say the opposite of the post is true, those classes reliant on many Long-rest mechanics (i.e. Spellcasters) are substantially weaker than the classes that benefit from many short-rest or always on mechanics. The power of any given long-rest ability is typically intended to be slightly more than a short/no rest...but it's not enough of a gap to make up for the many many repeated uses of the short/no rest abilities which easily overtake to provide great capability and output.



If you frame certain class abilities that way, that's exactly what we have (and bear in mind as per usual we haven't defined terms for martial):

Barbarian - Primal Champion (straight up breaks the ability score cap of mere mortals
Fighter - Extra Attack (3) (fights 4 times as fast as a normal human!), action surge (2) (Can supercharge to fight 8x as fast as a normal human), Indomitable (shrugs off attacks that would instantly kill a mortal).
Monk - Timeless Body (Doesn't eat or drink and can't be aged by magic, the thing that supposedly breaks the rules of reality...guess that's a big old lie.
Rogue - Stroke of Luck (basically a daily use of wish to re-roll and win.)

Apparently not everyone agrees. I like those though.

[Ashrym]

Apparently not everyone agrees. I like those though.

Not everyone agrees because they are not looking at all the options.

It's obvious WotC can envision more fantastic options because these are available in feats. They are more available in rewards like blessings, charms, special training, and epic boons.

All classes can have fantastic options that are limited by what the DM allows. You might be surprised how many debates exist because the debaters insist on DM's unfavourably ruling against non-magical options or not allowing options for martial characters while simultaneously allowing options for magic users and favourable rulings. ;-)

There are opportunities to go beyond the superhuman abilities already in the PHB classes, starting with additional action options and hero points, and increasing from there. Your barbarian could summon heroes from Valhalla once per week, plane shift to Asgard once per short rest, have immunity to thunder and lighting damage, thunderwave at will, bend someone's fate once per short rest, and become immortal eventually with those DMG reward options.

[Steampunkette]

It could be argued that a wizard can gain those same abilities... but that argument would be silly.

This is because of action opportunity cost. Sure, a wizard can benefit from once per week planeshifting to Valhalla. But at high end that just saves her one spell slot, per week, while the barbarian is gaining an ability she never had.

Further, a Wizard is going to be using her actions to cast spells, anyhow. It doesn't matter if it is a once a week plane shift or her normal spell slot. For a Barbarian that is a completely different mid combat action from the norm.

[Sigreid]

The problem currently is that so many actions, such as teleportation, Polymorph, creating walls of force, forcing enemies to do what you want them to (ex: Suggestion), controlling the weather and elements, finding things, creation, control, healing and restoring life, and so on are best handled by or are exclusive to magic. And wizards, having the largest selection of magic and no real limit to spells known, are thus capable of doing more (aka have more power to affect the plot) than anyone else. Martials, on the other hand, can deal damage, can sometimes take damage, and not a whole lot else. Martials are the armor and weapon, but casters are everything else.



I would argue that the player who is really affecting the plot is the one who makes the decision and sets the plan. Not necessarily the one who has the particular power to execute any give step. In every gaming group that I've been a part of the star of the story is simply the one that takes some initiative instead of sitting passively or using their skills/powers to respond to the GM's plot. I think this is the crux of the disagreement. If you believe that only your documented by the game powers = ability to influence the story then spellcasters seem really unfair. If you believe that the player's initiative is what gives them agency in the story, then you don't see a problem.

[Easy_Lee]

I would argue that the player who is really affecting the plot is the one who makes the decision and sets the plan. Not necessarily the one who has the particular power to execute any give step. In every gaming group that I've been a part of the star of the story is simply the one that takes some initiative instead of sitting passively or using their skills/powers to respond to the GM's plot. I think this is the crux of the disagreement. If you believe that only your documented by the game powers = ability to influence the story then spellcasters seem really unfair. If you believe that the player's initiative is what gives them agency in the story, then you don't see a problem.

In theory, the entire party can participate in making plans, etc. But in practice, those who have the most potential to affect the plot are usually the ones making the most decisions. And if your plan consists of "get the wizard to wall of force the dragon," do you really feel as though you personally accomplished something?

[zinycor]

In theory, the entire party can participate in making plans, etc. But in practice, those who have the most potential to affect the plot are usually the ones making the most decisions. And if your plan consists of "get the wizard to wall of force the dragon," do you really feel as though you personally accomplished something?

what? that isn't the practice on my games at all. Do you have any data that shows that:


But in practice, those who have the most potential to affect the plot are usually the ones making the most decisions.

I haven't ever had that idea from any of my games

[Easy_Lee]

what? that isn't the practice on my games at all. Do you have any data that shows that:

I haven't ever had that idea from any of my games

Data? Only my own experiences. Perhaps they differ from yours.

[zinycor]

Data? Only my own experiences. Perhaps they differ from yours.

Completely differs

[Sigreid]

Data? Only my own experiences. Perhaps they differ from yours.

Your experiences definitely differ from mine. Perhaps I've just been lucky with my groups.

[Easy_Lee]

Your experiences definitely differ from mine. Perhaps I've just been lucky with my groups.

Perhaps. I've had good groups and bad. The bad ones reveal the flaws in the system; flaws a good DM and good players would either avoid, fix, or never notice. That's why I value clear, concise, and fundamentally balanced rules. If the rules are good to begin with, then it's much easier to enjoy a game even when surrounded by bad players.

[zinycor]

Data? Only my own experiences. Perhaps they differ from yours.

Maybe not data exactly (since there are stadistics to what happens at a gaming table), but ¿What leads you to think that those players with more powerfull characters make most of the decisions?

In my experience, most of the decisions on the table have been made by the players that are more charismatic themselves, those with good (or funny) ideas, or those who that are important to the plot at any given time. None of those things are in any way related to what character were they playing.

EDIT: (didn't see your post since I was writing)


Perhaps. I've had good groups and bad. The bad ones reveal the flaws in the system; flaws a good DM and good players would either avoid, fix, or never notice. That's why I value clear, concise, and fundamentally balanced rules. If the rules are good to begin with, then it's much easier to enjoy a game even when surrounded by bad players.

I don't think the best set of rules could fix a bad group... but that's my opinion

[Sigreid]

Perhaps. I've had good groups and bad. The bad ones reveal the flaws in the system; flaws a good DM and good players would either avoid, fix, or never notice. That's why I value clear, concise, and fundamentally balanced rules. If the rules are good to begin with, then it's much easier to enjoy a game even when surrounded by bad players.

Well, D&D has never really been about balance (with the possible exception of 4e, I didn't care for the rules when I read them and my group showed no interest). Really, even in Basic D&D way back before AD&D was created. In fact it's always seemed to me that the wizard was the weak little nerd that the rest of the party carried while he leveled up. Rather than striving for equal power or options or whatever I think it's far more important for each player to have interesting and cool things they can do. In my opinion 5e does this.

[Warwick]

Barbarian - Primal Champion (straight up breaks the ability score cap of mere mortals
Fighter - Extra Attack (3) (fights 4 times as fast as a normal human!), action surge (2) (Can supercharge to fight 8x as fast as a normal human), Indomitable (shrugs off attacks that would instantly kill a mortal).
Monk - Timeless Body (Doesn't eat or drink and can't be aged by magic, the thing that supposedly breaks the rules of reality...guess that's a big old lie.
Rogue - Stroke of Luck (basically a daily use of wish to re-roll and win.)

This goes back to what I mentioned about 'mundane action heroes' not being a high-level character concept, though. Yes, those abilities are mildly superhuman, but they don't break the character out of the mundane action hero mode (for some genre appropriate examples: Boromir, Conan, Logen Ninefingers). Yeah, you're a badass who can take down several schmucks without breaking a sweat, but at the end of the day, you're still a guy who is just really good with a sword and unusually tough. You will die if you get into a fight enough schmucks*. You lack options - particularly when it comes to overcoming magical obstacles or dealing with magical countermeasures. This is most egregious with the fighter, whose non-swording abilities are effectively nil unless you take the gish subclass. Whereas, not only does a caster get better at what they do, they also get a dizzying array of options.

Not to say that there's nothing going for martial characters in the utility department, but it's often very limited and/or comes online late relative to how powerful/useful it actually is. And it is still in danger of being tarred with the brush of 'nonmagical'.

*And, ironically, while 5e has narrowed the caster-martial gap in some respects, bounded accuracy means that 'enough schmucks' isn't even all that many without favorable circumstances. It's certainly a lot lower than in 3.5e.

[Submortimer]

I still wish they had kept going with Tome of Battle. Sure, a lot of it felt like Weaboo Fitan Magic(tm), but that's not really a big deal. Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, White Raven...none of that stuff felt overtly supernatural/magical, just supremely badass, and broght their damage and utility up to caster-like levels. Warblade and Crusader for life!

Before you mention it, I know they kind of did ToB stuff with Battlemaster, but comparing battlemaster to Warblade is like comparing Wizard to...i don't know...candle caster.

[EggKookoo]

Well, D&D has never really been about balance (with the possible exception of 4e, I didn't care for the rules when I read them and my group showed no interest). Really, even in Basic D&D way back before AD&D was created. In fact it's always seemed to me that the wizard was the weak little nerd that the rest of the party carried while he leveled up. Rather than striving for equal power or options or whatever I think it's far more important for each player to have interesting and cool things they can do. In my opinion 5e does this.

Just piping in to agree with this assessment. Trying to create true balance between classes creates an incentive to blur the classes together, as very few raw abilities naturally balance with each other. If Guy 1 can swing a sword and Guy 2 can kill with a word at a distance, it's hard to see how you beef up Guy 1's sword swinging so that it's comparable, without eventually just cloning Guy 2's kill-with-a-word power in some fashion.

Historically, D&D has compensated for spellcasters' extreme high-level power by making them fragile (and in 1e/2e, virtually unplayable -- you could easily have a 1HP Magic User or Mage) at low levels. Not yet sure if 5e is really taking this route; I just don't have enough experience with it yet.

[Steampunkette]

Perfect balance is impossible because the classes are designed to fulfill different roles. There's no question of that.

The issue is that in designing spellcasting the role focus was muddled in favor of doing everything fairly well with limited use. Which while fine in theory, in practice leads to spellcasters controlling when the party takes a long rest. If the wizard blows all her spells early she's going to call for that long rest even if the rest of the party doesn't need a short one. And because of the loss of power to the group as a whole, they'll usually take that rest ASAP.

So you wind up with casters almost always having most of their spells (either saved for the big bad or used quickly and recovered).

Add in some spells that take set-pieces of fantasy backgrounds and make it something you do once per round and you wind up with what feels like an egregious difference.

Modifying the spells, slightly, and shifting around the resource management angle could help. But on the other hand you have to increase what martials do in general (and specifically out of combat) to bring closer parity. The additional combat rules provided in the DMG are a great start.

[EggKookoo]

The issue is that in designing spellcasting the role focus was muddled in favor of doing everything fairly well with limited use. Which while fine in theory, in practice leads to spellcasters controlling when the party takes a long rest. If the wizard blows all her spells early she's going to call for that long rest even if the rest of the party doesn't need a short one. And because of the loss of power to the group as a whole, they'll usually take that rest ASAP.

So you wind up with casters almost always having most of their spells (either saved for the big bad or used quickly and recovered).

As a DM I wouldn't allow that. "Sorry, you just finished a long rest an hour ago. You can rest for eight hours again but all you'll get is some sleep."

It's not unreasonable to insist you can't get the benefits of a long rest until a good amount of time has been spent not resting. I don't have my DMG with me at the moment but if there's nothing in it that indicates you can't chain long rests together I would assume they left it out because it's common sense. It would certainly be a house rule for me.

[EvanescentHero]

As a DM I wouldn't allow that. "Sorry, you just finished a long rest an hour ago. You can rest for eight hours again but all you'll get is some sleep."

It's not unreasonable to insist you can't get the benefits of a long rest until a good amount of time has been spent not resting. I don't have my DMG with me at the moment but if there's nothing in it that indicates you can't chain long rests together I would assume they left it out because it's common sense. It would certainly be a house rule for me.

I believe one of the books straight-up says you can only gain the benefits of one long rest in a twenty-four hour period.

[Shaofoo]

It seems to me that what the wizards can do that the fighters can't is to DM Proof their actions. The spells has to do what it says no exceptions and the DM doesn't have any say on the matter unless he tries to come up with every single scenario and plan accordingly or just place an anti magic field on everything that he doesn't want magic to be touching at all, yes even the peasant's chest is warded with an 8th level spell.

You guys want a guarantee which only spells can give, your threshold of risk is so low only guaranteed outcomes are wanted, not only you don't want to risk rolling a dice for a supposed failure but also you don't want to deal with the DC 99 checks that a DM might impose (every wall is greased up pane of glass, every lock is made by Gordian Knot Co. , every NPC is a bastion of iron will unable to be intimidated and will always go against you even when it is better to follow you)

It just seems that we are considering the worst DM we can have basically having limited uses of no fail actions is better than unlimited uses of always fail actions.

The only way we can ever have true balance is we give everyone a limited but sure fire way to do skills (like in 4e)

[coredump]

In theory, the entire party can participate in making plans, etc. But in practice, those who have the most potential to affect the plot are usually the ones making the most decisions. That is not my experience. The player with the initiative and decision making is not always the PC with the most ability.
OTOH, oftentimes the better players also happen to create PCs with a lot of capabilities. But that is actually backwards from what you are asserting.


And if your plan consists of "get the wizard to wall of force the dragon," do you really feel as though you personally accomplished something?Yes. If I create the plan that leads to victory, I accomplished quite a bit.

[Dimolyth]

As a DM I wouldn't allow that. "Sorry, you just finished a long rest an hour ago. You can rest for eight hours again but all you'll get is some sleep."

It's not unreasonable to insist you can't get the benefits of a long rest until a good amount of time has been spent not resting. I don't have my DMG with me at the moment but if there's nothing in it that indicates you can't chain long rests together I would assume they left it out because it's common sense. It would certainly be a house rule for me.

Back in 3.5 I had a group of casters who started "dungeon crawling" for one fight - 8 hours rest in magical "hut" (bite me, I don`t remember name of spell). After 3rd rest they met another adventure party who returned back. They did saved the princess, took all loot, killed all monsters and gathered all experience from that dungeon. End of story. Players feedbacked me that I`m vicious, but was a real fun for them.
Just proper reaction of the world to actions PC.

[Ashrym]

That is not my experience. The player with the initiative and decision making is not always the PC with the most ability.
OTOH, oftentimes the better players also happen to create PCs with a lot of capabilities. But that is actually backwards from what you are asserting.

Yes. If I create the plan that leads to victory, I accomplished quite a bit.

Considering most dragons can get around the wall and also still use lair actions I don't see wall of force as that effective anyway.

It's just another example of an argument by assumption that isn't really supported in gameplay.

[zinycor]

Considering most dragons can get around the wall and also still use lair actions I don't see wall of force as that effective anyway.

It's just another example of an argument by assumption that isn't really supported in gameplay.

I think the whole point of the argument is that: do you feel personally accomplished for coming up with a plan which uses other character capabilities? On my case, I most certainly would.

[Vogonjeltz]

In theory, the entire party can participate in making plans, etc. But in practice, those who have the most potential to affect the plot are usually the ones making the most decisions. And if your plan consists of "get the wizard to wall of force the dragon," do you really feel as though you personally accomplished something?


what? that isn't the practice on my games at all. Do you have any data that shows that:

Actually, in practice, it's most likely that the narcissist of the group takes charge and determines the plot direction (lead the group). Actual talent or capability doesn't have anything to do with it.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/narcissism.htm

It depends...was it my plan or am I the wizard? If I actual made the plan or helped to execute it, then yes, I'd be pleased. Given that the wall only lasts 10 minutes (or until the Wizard gets hit and loses concentration), I wouldn't exactly crow about success (assuming we weren't tryin to kill the dragon in which case...who cares about wall of force?) until after we succeeded.


I believe one of the books straight-up says you can only gain the benefits of one long rest in a twenty-four hour period.

Yep.

Player's Handbook, Part 2: Adventuring, page 186 "Resting": "A character can't benefit from more than one long rest in a 24-hour period"

[coredump]

Considering most dragons can get around the wall and also still use lair actions I don't see wall of force as that effective anyway.

It's just another example of an argument by assumption that isn't really supported in gameplay.

Um.... I assume you meant to reply to a different post? Maybe in a different thread?

[zinycor]

Um.... I assume you meant to reply to a different post? Maybe in a different thread?

Ashrym is probably refering to this comment:


In theory, the entire party can participate in making plans, etc. But in practice, those who have the most potential to affect the plot are usually the ones making the most decisions. And if your plan consists of "get the wizard to wall of force the dragon," do you really feel as though you personally accomplished something?

[Sigreid]

It seems to me that what the wizards can do that the fighters can't is to DM Proof their actions. The spells has to do what it says no exceptions and the DM doesn't have any say on the matter unless he tries to come up with every single scenario and plan accordingly or just place an anti magic field on everything that he doesn't want magic to be touching at all, yes even the peasant's chest is warded with an 8th level spell.

You guys want a guarantee which only spells can give, your threshold of risk is so low only guaranteed outcomes are wanted, not only you don't want to risk rolling a dice for a supposed failure but also you don't want to deal with the DC 99 checks that a DM might impose (every wall is greased up pane of glass, every lock is made by Gordian Knot Co. , every NPC is a bastion of iron will unable to be intimidated and will always go against you even when it is better to follow you)

It just seems that we are considering the worst DM we can have basically having limited uses of no fail actions is better than unlimited uses of always fail actions.

The only way we can ever have true balance is we give everyone a limited but sure fire way to do skills (like in 4e)

That's more about the GM than the game. It's a particularly childish form of railroading to take people's "cool" away from them.

[Ashrym]

Um.... I assume you meant to reply to a different post? Maybe in a different thread?

No, I was agreeing with the sentiment that wall of force as part of the plan wasn't an issue. I also expanded on a disagreement with whom you quoted.

Apologies if it was as confusing.

[coredump]

No, I was agreeing with the sentiment that wall of force as part of the plan wasn't an issue. I also expanded on a disagreement with whom you quoted.

Apologies if it was as confusing.

No worries, my bad. I had forgotten the dragon had been discussed....