Martial Power!!! (Give the martials something to do other than "attack again")

[strangebloke]

Ok, good luck selling those books then.
Lore explanations are useful for some powers and people like them.

But not always.

Sometimes its nice just to action surge and not really question what it all means.

The cracks are already showing by the mere fact that so much discussion is about it and nothing is truly agreed upon, everything is polarized, nothing is agreed upon, arguments only mount higher and higher, growing more intense. WotC is being cautious, treating the property like fine china. Things will come to ahead sooner or later. I am not prideful enough to think I know how. I mean people switching to playing something as good as GURPS? The world would have to be a lot less horrible to allow that to happen!

...

Its things like this that convince me the bubble is going to burst, precisely because there is a growing insistence on not saying anything bad about it and the silent majority supposedly agrees. Like your doing right now, trying to push your narrative of a happy go-lucky DnD where everything is sunshine and rainbows and nothing needs to change and the complainer is always wrong. Well too bad: whatever people like about it, I don't. I am going to continue wanting fighters to be better, I'm going to continue hoping that DnD bursts somehow so that people can enjoy more focused and well built experiences rather than a single shallow one full of acrimony and disagreements like this that will eventually tear DnD apart because the design is too incoherent, lazy or half-hearted to pick a group to please well and let other groups find something else that will please them better. after all, you can't please everyone.

I guess I just completely don't know what you mean by "bubble" and "burst." What does that look like in practical terms? I guess it means that lots of people and indeed entire tables don't really like 5e but are playing it anyone and buying every new release, because... the branding is so good they're playing a system they don't like? They've been brainwashed by Matt Mercer? Why are these groups still meeting for the same system? Why hasn't someone at one of these hypothetical groups just said "okay, screw this game, we're all playing Starfinder now!"

And even if that does happen that isn't a 'burst.' That's just one group deciding to do something different. This happens all the time, and its part of the normal motion of TTRPG players between systems. It might accelerate over time and you might see 5e becoming less prevalent over the course of a few years, but once again, that's not a 'burst.' People are still playing 3.5! Not Pathfinder. DND 3.5. That system's terrible and also old enough to drink! There's not going to be a revolution or a cataclysm, where oppressed 5e players rise up against WotC's oppressive regime and play the games they really want to play instead of 5e. That's just farcical.

I know 5e has problems, its just the best system right now for fantasy adventures because it is easy to run and play and there are a lot of people who strongly, strongly want a chance to play more 5e.

[Lord Raziere]

I guess I just completely don't know what you mean by "bubble" and "burst." What does that look like in practical terms? I guess it means that lots of people and indeed entire tables don't really like 5e but are playing it anyone and buying every new release, because... the branding is so good they're playing a system they don't like? They've been brainwashed by Matt Mercer? Why are these groups still meeting for the same system? Why hasn't someone at one of these hypothetical groups just said "okay, screw this game, we're all playing Starfinder now!"

And even if that does happen that isn't a 'burst.' That's just one group deciding to do something different. This happens all the time, and its part of the normal motion of TTRPG players between systems. It might accelerate over time and you might see 5e becoming less prevalent over the course of a few years, but once again, that's not a 'burst.' People are still playing 3.5! Not Pathfinder. DND 3.5. That system's terrible and also old enough to drink! There's not going to be a revolution or a cataclysm, where oppressed 5e players rise up against WotC's oppressive regime and play the games they really want to play instead of 5e. That's just farcical.

I know 5e has problems, its just the best system right now for fantasy adventures because it is easy to run and play and there are a lot of people who strongly, strongly want a chance to play more 5e.

There are certain issues that has divided the DnD fanbase and the positions on which cannot be truly reconciled: things such as martial-caster disparity, and whether or the default should be something more like Forgotten Realms or more like Eberron. make a mistake on something big enough like those two and these divisions will break DnD. older players tend to favor a Forgotten Realms-caster supremacy stance, and newer players tend to favor an Eberron-martial empowerment stance.

Either WotC will go too far in trying to appease older fans and cause newer fans to go to a new hypothetical game that will be much like Eberron but with more martial power added to martial classes, or they will go into appeasing new fans over old ones and enrage older fans, causing a second pathfinder like schism where a clone of 5e rises to meet their demand.

your ridiculous assertions as casting me trying to start something like that is what is farcical. You think if I had the power to cause THAT to happen for anything I'd waste it on THIS? I'm just seeing the patterns here. DnD is an economic empire and all empires fall sooner or later.

I can at least agree with you on 3.5 being terrible though.

[Brookshw]

Either WotC will go too far in trying to appease older fans and cause newer fans to go to a new hypothetical game that will be much like Eberron but with more martial power added to martial classes, or they will go into appeasing new fans over old ones and enrage older fans, causing a second pathfinder like schism where a clone of 5e rises to meet their demand.


I'm not sure I understand this FR/Eberron distinction you're suggesting :smallconfused:

Also, why wouldn't WoTC just keep doing what they're doing and let people release and monetize their own content a'la DM Guild/OGL licence, enabling players to get additional content and customize the game however they want (well, pay for someone else's customizations I guess).

Edit: corrected "you're"

[Lord Raziere]

I'm not sure I understand this FR/Eberron distinction your suggesting :smallconfused:

Also, why wouldn't WoTC just keep doing what they're doing and let people release and monetize their own content a'la DM Guild/OGL licence, enabling players to get additional content and customize the game however they want (well, pay for someone else's customizations I guess).

It is not relevant to this thread, so I'm not going to explain. the divide is the point.

If only I could find all the people that actually use the customizations I want. apparently none of them are giant in the playground.

[Brookshw]

It is not relevant to this thread, so I'm not going to explain. the divide is the point.

"There's a divide that'll cause a schism, but I won't explain what kind of divide I mean", that's unhelpful to understanding and evaluating the point you wanted to make.


If only I could find all the people that actually use the customizations I want. apparently none of them are giant in the playground.
So there's a big enough divide to cause a schism, but there isn't enough interest in parts of the divide to indicate wide spread interest?

[Lord Raziere]

"There's a divide that'll cause a schism, but I won't explain what kind of divide I mean", that's unhelpful to understanding and evaluating the point you wanted to make.


So there's a big enough divide to cause a schism, but there isn't enough interest in parts of the divide to indicate wide spread interest?

Trust me its better I don't. Its not relevant to martial power. So I don't derail this more than I already have.

Look, I'm just responding to someone who jumped on me while I was agreeing with someone else for once, based on a feeling I've been getting recently, and for once feeling good that I found someone who y'know actually shares my viewpoint then getting interrupted by someone who can't take bad things being said about a game. If your looking for a well thought out argument in the middle of that, thats your problem. I don't come in an academy thesis paper on anything. this is a roleplaying forum not research review session or whatever.

[Brookshw]

{scrubbed}

[Abracadangit]

If you're on Team Where The Hell Are Cool Things For Martials:

https://www.levelup5e.com/news/what-are-combat-maneuvers

https://www.levelup5e.com/news/lets-look-at-combat-maneuvers

EN World has been working on this "5e Advanced" system overlay for 5e for a while, apparently, though I just heard about it for the first time yesterday.

It's got a lot of cool bells and whistles (social and exploration reworked into every class, crafting, reworked exploration pillar), but one big thing they bring to the table is combat maneuvers for every martial class. And whaddaya know -- it's pretty much JUST LIKE THE THEORETICAL ONE I DESCRIBED BEFORE. I'm basically Nostradamus, is what I'm saying.

Different "schools" of maneuvers, each class gets access to different ones, and fighter gets access to all of them.

And how about that, in the second link, there's a maneuver (from the "big tough guy" maneuver school for Barbs, or whatever) where you can pick an enemy and toss them through other enemies, knocking everybody prone.

It's like -- how hard was that!?

[Psyren]

Lore explanations are useful for some powers and people like them.

But not always.

Sometimes its nice just to action surge and not really question what it all means.

Handwaving a single class feature is one thing. Handwaving an entire system is nonsense.


There are certain issues that has divided the DnD fanbase and the positions on which cannot be truly reconciled: things such as martial-caster disparity, and whether or the default should be something more like Forgotten Realms or more like Eberron. make a mistake on something big enough like those two and these divisions will break DnD. older players tend to favor a Forgotten Realms-caster supremacy stance, and newer players tend to favor an Eberron-martial empowerment stance.



I'm not sure I understand this FR/Eberron distinction your suggesting :smallconfused:


Yeah I'm lost too. Eberron is pulpier, but magic is still supreme. You may not have Elminster and the Simbul running around in the background, but major players like Jaela Daran still exist.


If you're on Team Where The Hell Are Cool Things For Martials:

https://www.levelup5e.com/news/what-are-combat-maneuvers

https://www.levelup5e.com/news/lets-look-at-combat-maneuvers

EN World has been working on this "5e Advanced" system overlay for 5e for a while, apparently, though I just heard about it for the first time yesterday.

It's got a lot of cool bells and whistles (social and exploration reworked into every class, crafting, reworked exploration pillar), but one big thing they bring to the table is combat maneuvers for every martial class. And whaddaya know -- it's pretty much JUST LIKE THE THEORETICAL ONE I DESCRIBED BEFORE. I'm basically Nostradamus, is what I'm saying.

Different "schools" of maneuvers, each class gets access to different ones, and fighter gets access to all of them.

And how about that, in the second link, there's a maneuver (from the "big tough guy" maneuver school for Barbs, or whatever) where you can pick an enemy and toss them through other enemies, knocking everybody prone.

It's like -- how hard was that!?

Yeah, I like these.

[Morty]

If you're on Team Where The Hell Are Cool Things For Martials:

https://www.levelup5e.com/news/what-are-combat-maneuvers

https://www.levelup5e.com/news/lets-look-at-combat-maneuvers

EN World has been working on this "5e Advanced" system overlay for 5e for a while, apparently, though I just heard about it for the first time yesterday.

It's got a lot of cool bells and whistles (social and exploration reworked into every class, crafting, reworked exploration pillar), but one big thing they bring to the table is combat maneuvers for every martial class. And whaddaya know -- it's pretty much JUST LIKE THE THEORETICAL ONE I DESCRIBED BEFORE. I'm basically Nostradamus, is what I'm saying.

Different "schools" of maneuvers, each class gets access to different ones, and fighter gets access to all of them.

And how about that, in the second link, there's a maneuver (from the "big tough guy" maneuver school for Barbs, or whatever) where you can pick an enemy and toss them through other enemies, knocking everybody prone.

It's like -- how hard was that!?

I know it's not really an option to change it, but all such efforts would be a lot easier if they didn't have to stick to the existing list of martial classes.

[OldTrees1]

EN World has been working on this "5e Advanced" system overlay for 5e for a while, apparently, though I just heard about it for the first time yesterday.

It's got a lot of cool bells and whistles (social and exploration reworked into every class, crafting, reworked exploration pillar), but one big thing they bring to the table is combat maneuvers for every martial class. And whaddaya know -- it's pretty much JUST LIKE THE THEORETICAL ONE I DESCRIBED BEFORE. I'm basically Nostradamus, is what I'm saying.

Different "schools" of maneuvers, each class gets access to different ones, and fighter gets access to all of them.

And how about that, in the second link, there's a maneuver (from the "big tough guy" maneuver school for Barbs, or whatever) where you can pick an enemy and toss them through other enemies, knocking everybody prone.

It's like -- how hard was that!?

How hard was that? The design is not very hard but generating the content is. I should always take the time to recognize and appreciate the effort it takes to make that much content.

If this was from WotC then I would have a couple critiques. Since it is from the playerbase those critiques soften.
1) Combat maneuvers, with a uniform recovery mechanic (exertion), baked into every martial class is not a great design. I have not seen all the classes, so I am assuming the usage of the exertion mechanic varies at least as much as Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade. However that might be optimistic. Some players don't like the amnesiac/exertion properties of maneuvers. A great design would take into account there is player preference variance and vary the options.

Oddly they also created a new spellcasting variant (Rangers with spells are 1/3rd casters but can cast each spell known 1/long rest in addition to using spell slots / long rest). So I recognize they understand the desire for system variability within a subsystem.

2) From looking at the Ranger class features (including the knacks), I continue to see features obtained several levels after they are appropriate. Consider the Ranger's 12th level Wilderness Lore describing generic level 0 abilities. To be fair, Ranger also gets an ASI and a new Knack (out of combat feature). Thus the high levels are full of several low level features per level. That would be fine on occasion, but it dominates the higher levels. This creates the effect of leveling switching from a vertical/horizontal mixed progression to a horizontal progression (outside of direct combat abilities). I expect this trend to continue for the other classes.



This is an improvement, but not a complete solution.

[Aimeryan]

It is small potatoes. Nothing McClane does is as impressive as what Doctor Strange does in the parts of his movies that don't even make it into discussions of how powerful he is. That doesn't mean it's a bad story, or an uninteresting story, or a story that isn't worthwhile. But it does mean that insisting that John McClane and Doctor Strange go in the same party is a waste of time for everyone involved.

And you still haven't answered the question: why should John McClane go twenty levels? What is it about John McClane that is better served by going 20 levels than 10? Making the measuring stick longer doesn't make any of his abilities more impressive, or allow him to solve bigger problems. The reason John McClane can't contribute to a Doctor Strange adventure isn't because the game system is failing him, it's because he does not have capabilities that let him do that. Stretching the capabilities he does have out over more levels only serves to make the experience of playing him less satisfying.

Agreed; there is nothing inherently better about spreading the same capabilities over more levels. The only reason to do this is as a balancing point against others at those levels. However, if Robin Hood is the balancing point you want to play at then insisting that Robin Hood be level 20 just seems daft when at level 20 you have Wizards calling down meteors against armies, plane hopping to avoid pursuit, and controlling the weather for vast areas.

It seems there needs to be a consensus on what high level looks like. What I think we can mostly all agree on is that martials and casters at high levels do not compare. What seems to be in conflict is whether high level should be looking like what casters are capable of, or, what martials are capable of. However, I do not see any benefit to excluding the high level play that caster are capable of; if you don't want to go there in your campaign, just don't go there? No one is saying you must carry on leveling up. In fact, you can't anyway, once you hit 20 - so why not stop at 10, instead?

If we chop all features casters get higher than level 10 and then spread the first 10 levels over 20 have we gained something or lost something? It seems obvious to me. On the flip side, if we condense all the features martials get over 20 levels into the first 10 levels (level scaling still in play as before for something like Sneak Attack), and then have the next 10 levels become comparable to what casters get have we gained something or lost something? Again, it seems obvious to me.

The discussion about buffing martials at high levels making the game balance go out of whack is a strawman; the casters at high levels are already at that buffed balance point so the ceiling has not changed. Even better, we can then buff the encounters to be more interesting than lower level encounters because the martials can now compete - so if the complaint is about making the game easier then the wrong end of the stick has been grabbed.

[Abracadangit]

How hard was that? The design is not very hard but generating the content is. I should always take the time to recognize and appreciate the effort it takes to make that much content.

If this was from WotC then I would have a couple critiques. Since it is from the playerbase those critiques soften.
1) Combat maneuvers, with a uniform recovery mechanic (exertion), baked into every martial class is not a great design. I have not seen all the classes, so I am assuming the usage of the exertion mechanic varies at least as much as Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade. However that might be optimistic. Some players don't like the amnesiac/exertion properties of maneuvers. A great design would take into account there is player preference variance and vary the options.

Oddly they also created a new spellcasting variant (Rangers with spells are 1/3rd casters but can cast each spell known 1/long rest in addition to using spell slots / long rest). So I recognize they understand the desire for system variability within a subsystem.

2) From looking at the Ranger class features (including the knacks), I continue to see features obtained several levels after they are appropriate. Consider the Ranger's 12th level Wilderness Lore describing generic level 0 abilities. To be fair, Ranger also gets an ASI and a new Knack (out of combat feature). Thus the high levels are full of several low level features per level. That would be fine on occasion, but it dominates the higher levels. This creates the effect of leveling switching from a vertical/horizontal mixed progression to a horizontal progression (outside of direct combat abilities). I expect this trend to continue for the other classes.



This is an improvement, not a solution.

You're right -- I didn't mean for the "How hard was that" comment to trivialize their hard work, it was more like "WotC's had how long to do something like this, and the best they could come up with were those new Battle Master maneuvers in Tasha's." EN World worked hard on this, that's legit.

Your point about the everyone-having-the-same-exertion-mechanic is also true, but I'm cutting them some slack -- they came out and said that one of their big design goals was to "add depth without adding complexity," which is a euphemism for "We want to add the things people keep asking for without Pathfinderizing 5e." Which is a sensible goal. I think they figured that if they didn't come up with a one-size-fits-all solution to maneuvers, then people would run away screaming. You don't need to convince me of your point, I said (in some other thread? Or the beginning of this one?) that I thought Barbs should get their resource for smashing stuff, Rogues should get it for landing sneak attacks, Monks should get it for unarmed strikes and/or dodging things, etc. I'm on your side.

Also agree with you about the exploration/social thing -- I don't see why high-level "knacks" for the ranger couldn't be like "If you roll lower than your Wisdom score on an Animal Handling check, use your Wisdom score instead" or whatever. Definite sense of a ball being somewhat dropped.

But still!! This is movement forward.

[strangebloke]

Ah I figured someone must have already done this. I'll take a look when I have more time.

[OldTrees1]

You're right -- I didn't mean for the "How hard was that" comment to trivialize their hard work, it was more like "WotC's had how long to do something like this, and the best they could come up with were those new Battle Master maneuvers in Tasha's." EN World worked hard on this, that's legit.

Your meaning was clear and I agreed. The content step is the only hard part left for WotC to create something like EN World is creating. Also a company is well positioned to handle the "make content" hard step.


Your point about the everyone-having-the-same-exertion-mechanic is also true, but I'm cutting them some slack. -snip- You don't need to convince me of your point, I said (in some other thread? Or the beginning of this one?) that I thought Barbs should get their resource for smashing stuff, Rogues should get it for landing sneak attacks, Monks should get it for unarmed strikes and/or dodging things, etc. I'm on your side.

Also agree with you about the exploration/social thing -snip-

But still!! This is movement forward.

I am also going to cut this EN World project some slack / soften my critique. These 2 critiques are areas for improvement. I feel WotC has had enough time and practice that they could have made an improved version in 4E, or 5E, so maybe they will eventually


Also agree with you about the exploration/social thing -- I don't see why high-level "knacks" for the ranger couldn't be like "If you roll lower than your Wisdom score on an Animal Handling check, use your Wisdom score instead" or whatever. Definite sense of a ball being somewhat dropped.

I have trouble measuring these effects in 5E due to my critiques of the 5E ability check system. This could be level appropriate for low level, or for high level, but I suspect anchoring to put it at low level. Almost any 0th level character could pass a DC 20, so DMs are unlikely to assign a high level output to a DC 20. So I am more prone to have that be a low/mid level knack than a high level knack.

[Psyren]

Agreed; there is nothing inherently better about spreading the same capabilities over more levels. The only reason to do this is as a balancing point against others at those levels. However, if Robin Hood is the balancing point you want to play at then insisting that Robin Hood be level 20 just seems daft when at level 20 you have Wizards calling down meteors against armies, plane hopping to avoid pursuit, and controlling the weather for vast areas.

I disagree that balance is the only reason. Another major reason is avoiding analysis paralysis. Take the ENWorld maneuvers Abracadangit shared - if the Fighter got access to every single one of them at first level, then building one would become cumbersome for the player and off-putting for many GMs. Spacing out the acquisition of those abilities serves to make the class more appealing and easier to manage.


It seems there needs to be a consensus on what high level looks like. What I think we can mostly all agree on is that martials and casters at high levels do not compare. What seems to be in conflict is whether high level should be looking like what casters are capable of, or, what martials are capable of. However, I do not see any benefit to excluding the high level play that caster are capable of; if you don't want to go there in your campaign, just don't go there? No one is saying you must carry on leveling up. In fact, you can't anyway, once you hit 20 - so why not stop at 10, instead?

If we chop all features casters get higher than level 10 and then spread the first 10 levels over 20 have we gained something or lost something? It seems obvious to me. On the flip side, if we condense all the features martials get over 20 levels into the first 10 levels (level scaling still in play as before for something like Sneak Attack), and then have the next 10 levels become comparable to what casters get have we gained something or lost something? Again, it seems obvious to me.

Why would I "stop at 10" when my Fighter 15 can take on a Horned Devil or a Mummy Lord? "Equal to a caster" is not the bar of usability, the Monster Manual is.

[Sindeloke]

Presumably, because a Horned Devil or Mummy Lord that can be defeated by a Fighter 15 as printed is boring and feels like a nerfed version of what it should be, and a Horned Devil or Mummy Lord that would require a Fighter 10/Rider of Storms 5 to defeat is more dangerous, more interesting, and also a more appropriate challenge for the larger problem-solving capabilities of the Bard 15 and Paladin 15 and Wizard 15 who're also in the party.

(Although in this proposed system, if I understand that right, that would actually end up being a Bard 10/Lord of Song 5, Paladin 10/Chosen of Pelor 5, and Wizard 10/Master of Lore 5, though still using what we'd recognize as lvl 7 spells, or lvl 4 in the pally's case.)

[Talakeal]

Presumably, because a Horned Devil or Mummy Lord that can be defeated by a Fighter 15 as printed is boring and feels like a nerfed version of what it should be, and a Horned Devil or Mummy Lord that would require a Fighter 10/Rider of Storms 5 to defeat is more dangerous, more interesting, and also a more appropriate challenge for the larger problem-solving capabilities of the Bard 15 and Paladin 15 and Wizard 15 who're also in the party.

(Although in this proposed system, if I understand that right, that would actually end up being a Bard 10/Lord of Song 5, Paladin 10/Chosen of Pelor 5, and Wizard 10/Master of Lore 5, though still using what we'd recognize as lvl 7 spells, or lvl 4 in the pally's case.)

I would really like to see what these monsters that are appropriate to casters and can’t possibly be defeated by fighters actually look like at the table.

[Psyren]

Presumably, because a Horned Devil or Mummy Lord that can be defeated by a Fighter 15 as printed is boring and feels like a nerfed version of what it should be, and a Horned Devil or Mummy Lord that would require a Fighter 10/Rider of Storms 5 to defeat is more dangerous, more interesting, and also a more appropriate challenge for the larger problem-solving capabilities of the Bard 15 and Paladin 15 and Wizard 15 who're also in the party.

(Although in this proposed system, if I understand that right, that would actually end up being a Bard 10/Lord of Song 5, Paladin 10/Chosen of Pelor 5, and Wizard 10/Master of Lore 5, though still using what we'd recognize as lvl 7 spells, or lvl 4 in the pally's case.)

With respect, I don't particularly care what you consider boring, I care about what the actual game designers put in the book I paid for.


I would really like to see what these monsters that are appropriate to casters and can’t possibly be defeated by fighters actually look like at the table.

I don't even think it's possible to build a Fighter that badly in 5e, unless you have like 10s in all your stats or something.

[Abracadangit]

I know it's not really an option to change it, but all such efforts would be a lot easier if they didn't have to stick to the existing list of martial classes.

Oh, 100%. It seems like they even riffed on the existing classes in some ways -- like their monk analog is the "adept," and the Eastern-themed monk is a subclass, while other subclasses include a rough-and-rowdy brawler and a sort of "sacred fist"-style holy athlete.

But yeah, when you're stuck with the old paradigms, then the maneuvers are gonna be made to fit them instead of the other way around.


I have trouble measuring these effects in 5E due to my critiques of the 5E ability check system. This could be level appropriate for low level, or for high level, but I suspect anchoring to put it at low level. Almost any 0th level character could pass a DC 20, so DMs are unlikely to assign a high level output to a DC 20. So I am more prone to have that be a low/mid level knack than a high level knack.

Word. What are your critiques of the ability check system? I'm all ears.

That's a good point about the hypothetical knack -- so the follow-up question: what does a high-level social knack look like? Advantage on all Persuasion checks in X situation? Maybe that's for another thread, but that's a problem I'm working on now, in my own homebrew.

[Talakeal]

I don't even think it's possible to build a Fighter that badly in 5e, unless you have like 10s in all your stats or something.

Presumably, they are talking about hypothetical super versions of monsters against which the casters could really cut loose if it weren’t for all the muggles holding them back.

[OldTrees1]

Word. What are your critiques of the ability check system? I'm all ears.

As long as this does not becoming a derailing subthread:
1) At its core the ability check system is 1dX+Y at 1st and increases to 1dX+Z at 20th. I consider (Z-Y)/X as a measurement of the movement of a character's ability check range across the size of the RNG. In 5E, realistically this is 6/20=0.3 or 10/20=0.5 for Experts. This is extremely flat. There is only a narrow window of DCs the 20th level character can access that the 1st level character can't. The vast majority of the ability check spectrum in 5E is about doing the same thing more reliably. Now tell me, what DC would you assign to taming a griffin? Is it something a 1st level character can do (>0% chance)? Is it something the 20th level character can master(100% chance)?


Full Experts Only
Yes 1st capability
No 1st capability


Yes 20th mastery
DC <= 18.
1st level maximum failure rate 50%
Error, can't exist.
NaN!!


No 20th mastery
18 < DC < 28.
1st level failure rate 55%-95%.
20th level failure rate 5%-45%
DC => 28.
20th level min failure rate 50%


This is too flat. Even among those with Expertise in a field where they are maxing out their ability score, the 20th level character will fail 50%+ of the things they couldn't do at 1st level. The ability check system in 5E does not scale enough to be useful as level appropriate features outside of a very narrow range of levels, and if you pick a range above 1st, then 1st level characters just gained some higher level features.

I do not know the ideal (Z-Y)/X and I suspect it depends on how other areas scale. I think (Z-Y)/X = 1.5 would be a reasonable test case.

2) Players are not informed about their PC's ability check capabilities. I have no idea what DC you answered up above. I don't even have a good reference frame to guess. Was it 15 or 20? 3E was good at giving a baseline, a bad baseline, but still a baseline. 5E is good at reinforcing the point that the GM decides the DCs. A working system is the best of both. In 3E my table had that, we understood D&D well enough that we understood the GM decides the DCs and the baseline is not sacred. However my experience was not universal, there were 3E tables that had issues with RAW vs GM Rulings.

If both of those problems were fixed (which takes both a framework changes and a content change), then the ability check system would be an impressive tool for this thread.


That's a good point about the hypothetical knack -- so the follow-up question: what does a high-level social knack look like? Advantage on all Persuasion checks in X situation? Maybe that's for another thread, but that's a problem I'm working on now, in my own homebrew.

Mid-High social knack: You founded or otherwise control a city state. Exact scope, size, influence, and control would change the level range. Similar knacks might include controlling a world wide organization. Since this is a knack instead of a hard coded feature, the player has the option to select a different high level social knack.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Mid-High social knack: You founded or otherwise control a city state. Exact scope, size, influence, and control would change the level range. Similar knacks might include controlling a world wide organization.

Yeah, no. This isn't a class feature at all, let along a "mid high" one. That's something that comes via campaigning. Giving it purely for leveling up shatters verisimilitude and worldbuilding hard. One day you're a normal person, the next there's this magically produced city state that you control. That now has to fit into the world, have a reason for being. And heaven forfend you level up at the wrong time while you're in the middle of no-where.

And you've got two options once you do--

1) retire from adventuring to manage the organization/state.
2) keep adventuring and turn the reins over to someone else. In which case you no longer control it.

Because history is quite clear that absentee rulers don't stay de facto rulers very long, and while they're gone they exercise little or no control (having given that to agents that they cannot manage).

[Xervous]

I just want the game to show some responsibility and explain what it expects GMs and players to do with feature deficient Martials. Is the expectation that the champion fighter gets catered to in scene design to make up for the absence of unique features? Is the expectation that the champion fighter gets fewer opportunities for interaction because of its class? The devs made something and they for sure know there are sharp edges. Where’s my user manual and caution stickers?

[Psyren]

Yeah, no. This isn't a class feature at all, let along a "mid high" one. That's something that comes via campaigning. Giving it purely for leveling up shatters verisimilitude and worldbuilding hard. One day you're a normal person, the next there's this magically produced city state that you control. That now has to fit into the world, have a reason for being. And heaven forfend you level up at the wrong time while you're in the middle of no-where.

And you've got two options once you do--

1) retire from adventuring to manage the organization/state.
2) keep adventuring and turn the reins over to someone else. In which case you no longer control it.

Because history is quite clear that absentee rulers don't stay de facto rulers very long, and while they're gone they exercise little or no control (having given that to agents that they cannot manage).

Agree, this is something too specific to the structure/goals of the campaign world to be a class or subclass feature. The GM decides whether you attain this kind of societal power, not hitting an arbitrary level threshold.


I just want the game to show some responsibility and explain what it expects GMs and players to do with feature deficient Martials. Is the expectation that the champion fighter gets catered to in scene design to make up for the absence of unique features? Is the expectation that the champion fighter gets fewer opportunities for interaction because of its class? The devs made something and they for sure know there are sharp edges. Where’s my user manual and caution stickers?

Someone playing a Champion Fighter is likely doing so because they want to interact with the monsters in the monster manual, and by interact I mean stab, while leaving most of the stuff in the other two pillars to other characters. They're also not too fussed even about other styles of play within the combat pillar, like buffing or battlefield control or healing (other than themselves.)

[Man_Over_Game]

This seems like something that would be an enormous amount of work to apply to an existing system, and which would probably not end up with things being used consistently enough to key abilities off them. What happens when you end up with [Projectile] effects being really common at some levels, but nonexistent at others? If you're designing things from the ground up, you can make sure that your tags are distributed in a way that ensures interactions work out well, but trying to apply that in-place to 5e seems like a fool's errand.

How common are Ranged Attacks from levels 1-20? What about AoEs? Curses? Buffs?

Besides AoEs, healing and spells becoming more common as you level, 5e is pretty consistent as to what kinds of effects show up for what level of play.

I don't think it'd take me that long to come up with a list of patch notes for these changes on the existing 5e, maybe a week with a mild day-to-day workload from my real life. Once all of the "Handles" are added (the organizing tags that allow other things to interact with this thing), and the core mechanics all function as normal with the new tags (so something like Deflect Missiles explicitly mentions Projectiles), the next phase would involve swapping out core mechanics for more fun versions that can easily interact with pieces of the game. Even minor changes (like being able to use Deflect Missiles to catch Ice Knife before throwing it back) would work without much intervention or explanation by explaining how abilities transition into other forms.

For instance, Ice Knife would be a Projectile->Explosion, with Projectiles having a description of "Something physical or semi-physical that can be blocked or deflected. It is not destroyed until it hits an object or a creature, and spell Projectiles are destroyed by the end of the current turn". Abilities transition into their next "effect" when their previous form ends or is destroyed. Ranged Weapon Attacks would also be Projectiles. With these minor changes, the Monk's Deflect Missiles would be modified to be able to catch Projectiles without destroying them, which would mean they'd also be able to deflect things like Firebolts back at enemies (which doesn't have to be as much of a "catch" and could just be a redirecting roundhouse kick).

The concept of a Monk being able to roundhouse kick a firebolt shot at him to another enemy is something you'd expect out of a fantasy masterpiece, like the Avatar series. That's what I envision with a system that has too many "Handles": Infinite possibilities. 5e has a ton of content, it's just so haphazardly categorized that it's impossible to directly interact with the system without magic.

I'll see if I can come up with some patch notes by next week. I won't be able to cover all of the PHB spells, but I will make sure there's enough diversity that it's easy to see how they can be organized. Without considering any changes to class abilities (to make them fit better to the new system), I'll make sure spells function exactly as they do now.

[Xervous]

Someone playing a Champion Fighter is likely doing so because they want to interact with the monsters in the monster manual, and by interact I mean stab, while leaving most of the stuff in the other two pillars to other characters. They're also not too fussed even about other styles of play within the combat pillar, like buffing or battlefield control or healing (other than themselves.)

Yeah, that’s what’s legible between the lines. The devs knew that, players can figure it out in time. Why not just make it part of a sidebar?

[Talakeal]

Someone playing a Champion Fighter is likely doing so because they want to interact with the monsters in the monster manual, and by interact I mean stab, while leaving most of the stuff in the other two pillars to other characters. They're also not too fussed even about other styles of play within the combat pillar, like buffing or battlefield control or healing (other than themselves.)

Disagree.

I typically play champion fighters and enjoy dealing with the other pillars. Note that part of being able to interact with a pillar is not having an ability that simply bypasses it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Disagree.

I typically play champion fighters and enjoy dealing with the other pillars. Note that part of being able to interact with a pillar is not having an ability that simply bypasses it.

Although, TBF, folks don't take Minor Illusion or Detect Thoughts to bypass the Social or Exploration Pillars, they take those to better interact with them.

[Psyren]

Disagree.

I typically play champion fighters and enjoy dealing with the other pillars. Note that part of being able to interact with a pillar is not having an ability that simply bypasses it.

I'm not saying your Champion character can't interact with the other pillars, I'm saying their choice to use that subclass is mostly a nonfactor in whether the player does or not. Remarkable Athlete gives some minor bonuses to Exploration but that's pretty much it, and you're getting that right as other classes are beginning to access things like flight and teleportation.

There's nothing wrong with that if the player is having fun, but I'd expect a Champion player to know that most of their interaction with those other pillars will be driven primarily by ability checks and roleplay rather than features.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not saying your Champion character can't interact with the other pillars, I'm saying their choice to use that subclass is mostly a nonfactor in whether the player does or not. Remarkable Athlete gives some minor bonuses to Exploration but that's pretty much it, and you're getting that right as other classes are beginning to access things like flight and teleportation.

There's nothing wrong with that if the player is having fun, but I'd expect a Champion player to know that most of their interaction with those other pillars will be driven primarily by ability checks and roleplay rather than features.


Agreed. Unless an option is making other options obsolete, having more options generally means you have more game to play.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah, no.


Agree

Could you be constructive by answerings Abracadangit's question by giving examples of high level social knacks you would design if under the constrain of not relying on the ability check system

I expect that would be common policy if you interrupt a conversation just to say "naw, not that example".

[Man_Over_Game]

As long as this does not becoming a derailing subthread:
To add to OldTrees' response, a big reason the Skill System doesn't scale like the rest of the game does (which otherwise does fine with the standard Prof + D20 system) is that Skills don't have an amplifying modifier that scales as you level, while the rest of the d20 systems in 5e do.

Attacks, for instance, use the same kind of system as skills to hit, but what scales is damage. It still uses the same contest to determine a success/fail, but it goes beyond that by adding either more damage or making more checks (attacks), neither of which are included to Skills.

Spells also scale with the Spell Levels acting as a power tier. Despite Fireball using a Success/Failure scheme, like most spells, it still is a lot more effective than a spell of a lower level like Burning Hands, as the Success deals more damage and the Failure is no longer a complete Failure.

Skills don't have anything that makes them scale, as everything that leverages the d20 (attacks, AC, saves) all generally scale at roughly the same rate as you level. So as your level increases, your accuracy improves, the enemies you fight have better AC, your spells have a harder save, but the enemies have better save bonuses, your skill bonuses increase and the areas you explore in become more difficult. However, you're also dealing more damage with your attacks and having bigger effects with your spells, Skills remain as effective as they were at level 1.

That's the equivalent of saying that Burning Hands is totally worth it at level 18 just because your spell save for it is a whopping DC 18.

There have been hundreds of threads on this forum exactly like this one that were targeted at the Skill System, the non-scaling issue is just the most-obvious issue of a laundry list of them.


Could you be constructive by answerings Abracadangit's question by giving examples of high level social knacks you would design if under the constrain of not relying on the ability check system


I expect that would be common policy if you interrupt a conversation just to say "naw, not that example".

Frankly, I think that's going to be the hardest part. I think the easiest way to do it is just decide what the most overpowered thing you could plausibly do at level 20 with every single skill. Then decide if each example is too strong or too weak for 5e at that level, and then add level 10 examples, repeating the process until you have a solid outline for almost all levels that suits the power level folks are looking for.

Question is, what's a max-rolled, level 20 History Check going to do that a DM might consider too OP?

[OldTrees1]

To add to OldTrees' response, a big reason the Skill System doesn't scale like the rest of the game does (which otherwise does fine with the standard Prof + D20 system) is that Skills don't have an amplifying modifier that scales as you level.

There have been hundreds of threads on this forum exactly like this one that were targeted at the Skill System, the non-scaling issue is just the most-obvious issue of a laundry list of them.

I must resist analyzing whether a single check (with a modifier that scales greater than the size of the RNG) vs a bounded check + scaling amplifier is a more useful ability check system. That would definitely derail the thread. Both have merits but I am not going to analyze it here.

Edit: Idea I must jot down, what if skill points reappeared in the amplifier side. However I must resist analyzing this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Could you be constructive by answerings Abracadangit's question by giving examples of high level social knacks you would design if under the constrain of not relying on the ability check system

I expect that would be common policy if you interrupt a conversation just to say "naw, not that example".

Saying that an example is so egregious as to call the entire project into question is constructive--that example was so far beyond what could be meaningful for anyone (spell or any other mechanic) that it makes the whole idea of knacks be a farce. Not just power, but the way it shatters any concept of worldbuilding or versimilitude irrevocably.

The idea of that constraint is also a problem (especially for social things). Because if you don't rely on the ability check system, you have to design and balance an entirely new sub-system. And new subsystems are bad, because they're an exponential maintenance load. Which means they don't get updated as books get published, etc.

Heck, I'd say that social things are where the ability check system works best. And you could do knacks that look like

* The other party is willing to listen to you as long as their INT > X [ie allows you to engage in social efforts even if they'd normally be hostile]
* Treat the other party's disposition as {indifferent | friendly} if it isn't already that or better. [this completely changes what's even possible with a check]
* Make a DC X Wisdom (Insight) check. On a success, you know the boundaries of the other party's Zone of Negotiable Agreement [ie what they want that won't even require a check]
* etc.

These are things that work at just about any level, but work with ability checks, not trying to create some new system without any support or checks or balances.

[Man_Over_Game]

I must resist analyzing whether a single check (with a modifier that scales greater than the size of the RNG) vs a bounded check + scaling amplifier is a more useful ability check system. That would definitely derail the thread. Both have merits but I am not going to analyze it here.

Edit: Idea I must jot down, what if skill points reappeared in the amplifier side.

I think the main problem is that the investments you put in just aren't worth it. The d20 is fine with attacks and spells, since they scale with your investments through resources, stats, or your level, but the only things that scale with your level when it comes to skills is your proficiency and your attribute bonus. You already have investments that should be worth it when it comes to skills, they just aren't very important.

If, for example, you removed the d20 altogether, whether you success or fail would be entirely dependent on your stats. This is the most extreme example, but it shows that reducing how important the RNG is can result in making your character bonuses more important. You can tone down the shock to the system by focusing on limiting the RNG (where this example removed it completely).

For example, changing the skill system to use 2d10 would go a long way to making your stats carry more weight, since you're more likely to hit a result where your stats are more relevant. This does have the effect of making Expertise a lot more important, while also giving amateurs no reason to bother trying, so keep that in mind.


Another solution I've considered is to have a single roll for success, and then have repeated, optional rolls afterwards to determine the level of success you had with that skill. For instance, maybe it doesn't cost your Action, or the enemy's knocked prone, on top of whatever you originally intended to do. This has a similar effect of making your stats more important, since adding more dice to the equation essentially averages out the RNG for a more consistent result that relies on your stats for success. Anyone can succeed a DC 20 on a fluke, but can an amateur do it twice?



Your idea of adding an amplifier somewhere is definitely an option (you could even just tie your "Skill Effectiveness" to your Proficiency Bonus, if you wanted to), I was just wanting to let folks know there is a way to make your existing stats more relevant through other means.​

[OldTrees1]

Saying that an example is so egregious as to call the entire project into question is constructive--that example was so far beyond what could be meaningful for anyone (spell or any other mechanic) that it makes the whole idea of knacks be a farce. Not just power, but the way it shatters any concept of worldbuilding or versimilitude irrevocably.

That is not the context of the subthread you interrupted. Thank you for the attempt.

Edit: short and sweet

[Psyren]

Could you be constructive by answerings Abracadangit's question by giving examples of high level social knacks you would design if under the constrain of not relying on the ability check system

I expect that would be common policy if you interrupt a conversation just to say "naw, not that example".

I genuinely don't believe that high-level social interactions need codified mechanics - or even if you want them, certainly I don't think they'd need to be found within the class feature framework. They are by their very nature table-specific and party-agnostic.

Put another way - there are stats in the Monster Manual that let you gauge how hard it should be to fight a Vampire or a Mummy, and you can even go one step further to figure out how hard it might be for a given class to fight one. By contrast, there is not a "Social Manual" that tells you how hard it is to outwit a scheming lord, solve a chaplain's murder, or convince a greedy dragon to leave a nearby town alone. Those are all things you can do in D&D, but every table is going to approach them differently.


* The other party is willing to listen to you as long as their INT > X [ie allows you to engage in social efforts even if they'd normally be hostile]
* Treat the other party's disposition as {indifferent | friendly} if it isn't already that or better. [this completely changes what's even possible with a check]
* Make a DC X Wisdom (Insight) check. On a success, you know the boundaries of the other party's Zone of Negotiable Agreement [ie what they want that won't even require a check]
* etc.

These are things that work at just about any level, but work with ability checks, not trying to create some new system without any support or checks or balances.

Even with this list, I would want a very hefty dollop of "At the GM's discretion" layered into each one. Dictating that an NPC is willing to listen to you even after you shoot their puppy or child in front of them simply because you have a knack that says they do is likely to break immersion into splinters. At least with a magical charm effect you're explicitly warping their will and subverting their character.

[OldTrees1]

I genuinely don't believe that high-level social interactions need codified mechanics - or even if you want them, certainly I don't think they'd need to be found within the class feature framework. They are by their very nature table-specific and party-agnostic.

That is a fair position, but it means you have little reason to engage with a subthread about Abracadangit asking me about what would a high level social Knack be. Assuming you were following the parent subthread reviewing the Knack subsystem, you would probably shrug your shoulders and be content that Knacks are optional features from a list rather than hard coded features. Although I am not sure you would have even been interested in that subthread either because I did not see you very engaged when the subthread discussing the source of the Knack system was started.

[Abracadangit]

As long as this does not becoming a derailing subthread: -- snip

-- snip Mid-High social knack: You founded or otherwise control a city state. Exact scope, size, influence, and control would change the level range. Similar knacks might include controlling a world wide organization. Since this is a knack instead of a hard coded feature, the player has the option to select a different high level social knack.

Sorry - this went ahead and became a derailing subthread, but that's on me more than you. I've always had an inkling about the ability check system that the space feels weird (i.e. the growth in character success rate is wonky), but never had the math to back it up. And you have all of the math. You're right -- it would take some serious homebrew/reinvention to fix it, so it's kind of the way it is.

You might be ahead of the game -- that 5e Advanced thing has taken the time to make hard rules for things like strongholds, reputation, and so on. They're not intrinsically wired into character growth (I think?), but still -- I'd play a system where at high levels, there's mechanics for a rogue to run their own thieves' guild, a wizard to run their own arcane research lab, a fighter to run their own mercenary company, etc. I dig it.


To add to OldTrees' response -- snip

Yeah, it's interesting, I didn't know this was such a well-documented issue, but I always suspected. I'd say "Homebrew to the Rescue," but like OldTrees1 said, to fix this at the root, you'd have to rework and rethink a lot about how the whole thing works.


And you could do knacks that look like

* The other party is willing to listen to you as long as their INT > X
* Treat the other party's disposition as {indifferent | friendly} if it isn't already that or better. [this completely changes what's even possible with a check]
* Make a DC X Wisdom (Insight) check. On a success, you know the boundaries of the other party's Zone of Negotiable Agreement [ie what they want that won't even require a check]
* etc.

These are things that work at just about any level, but work with ability checks, not trying to create some new system without any support or checks or balances.

That first one sounds a lot like the social version of what people don't like about the OG PHB Ranger's exploration abilities -- it doesn't so much give you an ability as it lets you ignore a pillar. You have X Int, the NPC will listen to you what you have to say, no questions asked. Second one has a similar problem.

You said we shouldn't go around making new systems without any support or checks and balances, but what's a Zone of Negotiable Agreement? I'm not feigning ignorance -- I know what you're trying to say -- but there's nothing in the books that talks about Zones of Negotiable Agreement, so we're making up new mechanics there.

I don't mean to be difficult, but I want to point out that it's hard to make high-level social abilities that aren't just "Screw it, different flavor of Charm," maybe harder than what you initially suggested when you came at OldTrees1 with the "Yeah, no" attitude.


I genuinely don't believe that high-level social interactions [I]need codified mechanics - or even if you want them, certainly I don't think they'd need to be found within the class feature framework. They are by their very nature table-specific and party-agnostic.

I'll meet you halfway -- I don't know we need a social interaction "system" per se, right. Social interactions are weird and take many forms.

BUT. I find it odd that class, as of right now, talks to the social pillar almost never. And when it does, it's very scattershot and oftentimes bizarre, like Monks getting that omni-language ability or Swashbucklers getting that non-magical charm hack.

I don't know that it should be a controversial take that Barbs should have something in their features that makes them better at Intimidation, or lets them use it in a novel way. Bards should have something that talks to Performance, right. Warlocks should have a special Persuasion ribbon when making bargains with fiends, fey, etc.

I think it's weird that they don't. Before everyone jumps out of the hedges, I know not everyone agrees with that, and that's okay. Even though this 5e Advanced malarkey has a lot of social things that seem kinda ribbony for high-level, I respect that they're trying, which is a cut above WotC at this point.

------------------

I apologize for starting a subthread derail. If anyone wants to discuss this stuff in greater detail, we can always make another thread. Not to say you can't counter me here on anything I said, I just don't want the rabbit hole to destabilize the thread.

Anyone else had a chance to look over the 5e Advanced example maneuvers? They look pretty solid from what I've seen, but I'm also not great at the mathematical/optimizing end of things, so my opinion on their balance isn't necessarily the best one there is.

[Aimeryan]

I disagree that balance is the only reason. Another major reason is avoiding analysis paralysis. Take the ENWorld maneuvers Abracadangit shared - if the Fighter got access to every single one of them at first level, then building one would become cumbersome for the player and off-putting for many GMs. Spacing out the acquisition of those abilities serves to make the class more appealing and easier to manage.

Fair point in theory, however, in practice this shouldn't affect martials in 5e -Wizards get more level 1 spells to choose from (nevermind other features) than any one martial get features across the whole 20 levels. Valid point, though. Of course, not relevant to this discussion at this time as no one is advocating even close to such an extreme as condensing all of a martials features they currently get into one level.



Why would I "stop at 10" when my Fighter 15 can take on a Horned Devil or a Mummy Lord? "Equal to a caster" is not the bar of usability, the Monster Manual is.

As Sindeloke alludes, this is not about what martials can currently fight at level 20 (or 15), since I do not believe anyone has mentioned level 20 martials are unable to handle the level 20 encounters of 5e. Theorectically, if 5e had a level 100 encounter that involved runing up to something and hitting it over the head with a hammer to win then martials would have no problem at that level, either - presuming the stats were scaled as required.

The argument here is this; is running up and hitting something over the head with a hammer a level 100 encounter? Is it even a level 10 encounter? I would argue, and this is where I think we are seeing divergence in what people want, that this type of encounter is little more than a level 1-5 encounter, just with bigger numbers. This to me is not a high level encounter, and this is where we are stuck at with 5e's desire to both have super simple martials and yet allow them to (easily, in fact) win encounters at high level.

Is it developer laziness? Inability to develop high level monsters and encounters? Is it just a realisation that they can make minimal effort and reap in cash from the audience that has came in (much like EA with the Fifa series, or Activision with the COD series)? Or have we, the audience, failed to ask for more? Do we dare? I do.

[Psyren]

That is a fair position, but it means you have little reason to engage with a subthread about Abracadangit asking me about what would a high level social Knack be. Assuming you were following the parent subthread reviewing the Knack subsystem, you would probably shrug your shoulders and be content that Knacks are optional features from a list rather than hard coded features. Although I am not sure you would have even been interested in that subthread either because I did not see you very engaged when the subthread discussing the source of the Knack system was started.

Respectfully, I'm not aware of any rule saying I have to immerse myself in an entire "subthread" (however such a concept is even defined) in order to express my opinion on a single idea or post. My statement pertained to the main subject of martial power and mechanics, and I thus believe it to be on-topic for the thread.

I also agree with PhoenixPhyre's earlier statement that dissenting/pointing out what we feel to be a particularly egregious mechanical suggestion is constructive (or at least, that we can genuinely express it as such), whether or not we accept the underlying premise that social abilities need to be tied to class features.



I'll meet you halfway -- I don't know we need a social interaction "system" per se, right. Social interactions are weird and take many forms.

BUT. I find it odd that class, as of right now, talks to the social pillar almost never. And when it does, it's very scattershot and oftentimes bizarre, like Monks getting that omni-language ability or Swashbucklers getting that non-magical charm hack.

I don't know that it should be a controversial take that Barbs should have something in their features that makes them better at Intimidation, or lets them use it in a novel way. Bards should have something that talks to Performance, right. Warlocks should have a special Persuasion ribbon when making bargains with fiends, fey, etc.

I think it's weird that they don't. Before everyone jumps out of the hedges, I know not everyone agrees with that, and that's okay. Even though this 5e Advanced malarkey has a lot of social things that seem kinda ribbony for high-level, I respect that they're trying, which is a cut above WotC at this point.

You misunderstand me - I'm actually 100% on board with features that allow martial classes increased ability to interact with the other pillars of play. I just want them to do it through the existing ability check system rather than circumventing it, so that the GM still has control over the social and exploratory structures of their world. Features that grant minimum rolls, numerical bonuses/expertise, bonus proficiencies, rerolls, and advantage all work very well. Features that wholesale dictate or curtail the actions or attitudes of NPCs and the world state are not.

As an example of a feature I like, Tasha's added some social and exploration maneuvers to the Battle Master Fighter - Tactical Assessment, Ambush, Commanding Presence etc. It would take some work, but I think stuff like that should be available baseline to all Fighters. I think the maneuver system you floated earlier is one reasonable way to potentially do that.



That first one sounds a lot like the social version of what people don't like about the OG PHB Ranger's exploration abilities -- it doesn't so much give you an ability as it lets you ignore a pillar. You have X Int, the NPC will listen to you what you have to say, no questions asked. Second one has a similar problem.

You said we shouldn't go around making new systems without any support or checks and balances, but what's a Zone of Negotiable Agreement? I'm not feigning ignorance -- I know what you're trying to say -- but there's nothing in the books that talks about Zones of Negotiable Agreement, so we're making up new mechanics there.

Agreed with all this.

[Man_Over_Game]

As an example of a feature I like, Tasha's added some social and exploration maneuvers to the Battle Master Fighter - Tactical Assessment, Ambush, Commanding Presence etc. It would take some work, but I think stuff like that should be available baseline to all Fighters. I think the maneuver system you floated earlier is one reasonable way to potentially do that.

I have a mockup of it somewhere, but I did some calculations a long while back about how you can replace Action Surge with Superiority Dice + Maneuvers in a way that's very well balanced by adding dice whenever the Fighter would gain an attack (since the value of a SD is roughly the value of an attack). So you'd get 1 die and 1 maneuver at level 2, another die + maneuver at level 5, etc. instead of getting Action Surge. You get a big buff to your Fighter maneuvers when you'd normally get your 2nd Action Surge (like increasing the die size and number of maneuvers) to compensate for the double-Action Surge feature.

Although, thinking about it, that was all before Tasha's. With those new maneuvers, you could essentially make the Fighter a more combat-oriented Rogue by adding a few utility feats on top of your maneuvers, so you could be something like a single-classed social Samurai or something like that. That actually sounds like a lot of fun.

[Abracadangit]

You misunderstand me - I'm actually 100% on board with features that allow martial classes increased ability to interact with the other pillars of play. I just want them to do it through the existing ability check system rather than circumventing it, so that the GM still has control over the social and exploratory structures of their world. Features that grant minimum rolls, numerical bonuses/expertise, bonus proficiencies, rerolls, and advantage all work very well. Features that wholesale dictate or curtail the actions or attitudes of NPCs and the world state are not.

As an example of a feature I like, Tasha's added some social and exploration maneuvers to the Battle Master Fighter - Tactical Assessment, Ambush, Commanding Presence etc. It would take some work, but I think stuff like that should be available baseline to all Fighters. I think the maneuver system you floated earlier is one reasonable way to potentially do that.

Word. Sorry for running in the wrong direction with your argument -- I've gotten so used to people arguing with me that "SOCIAL PILLAR IS FINE, LEAVE IT" that apparently I see that thesis even when it isn't there.

I agree with everything you're saying. Heck, give more classes something like what the Samurai has -- "Barb can add Str modifier as a bonus to Cha (Intimidation) checks." Give Sorcerers an optional feature that gives them psuedo-prof in Performance when they use Prestidigitation or an illusion spell, or instead, they can opt to Disguise Self as a ritual that gives onlookers disadvantage on their Investigation check when cast that way. Or something! Just ANYTHING.

Yeah, there's already enough Charm spells and Charm-analogs -- no more hypnotizing. If there's to be a real social pillar, it's gotta stop overriding NPCs like they're programmable hosts from Westworld.

[Psyren]

Fair point in theory, however, in practice this shouldn't affect martials in 5e -Wizards get more level 1 spells to choose from (nevermind other features) than any one martial get features across the whole 20 levels. Valid point, though. Of course, not relevant to this discussion at this time as no one is advocating even close to such an extreme as condensing all of a martials features they currently get into one level.

Wizards are absolutely more complex out of the gate than most if not all martial classes. But I think everyone, including new players and even brand new GMs expect them to be, so there's no issue there. The issue is not that no class can ever have the potential for analysis paralysis, the issue is that it should be on the classes where it is expected (prepared casters.)


As Sindeloke alludes, this is not about what martials can currently fight at level 20 (or 15), since I do not believe anyone has mentioned level 20 martials are unable to handle the level 20 encounters of 5e. Theorectically, if 5e had a level 100 encounter that involved runing up to something and hitting it over the head with a hammer to win then martials would have no problem at that level, either - presuming the stats were scaled as required.

The argument here is this; is running up and hitting something over the head with a hammer a level 100 encounter? Is it even a level 10 encounter? I would argue, and this is where I think we are seeing divergence in what people want, that this type of encounter is little more than a level 1-5 encounter, just with bigger numbers. This to me is not a high level encounter, and this is where we are stuck at with 5e's desire to both have super simple martials and yet allow them to (easily, in fact) win encounters at high level.

Is it developer laziness? Inability to develop high level monsters and encounters? Is it just a realisation that they can make minimal effort and reap in cash from the audience that has came in (much like EA with the Fifa series, or Activision with the COD series)? Or have we, the audience, failed to ask for more? Do we dare? I do.

Looking at the CR 11-20 bracket just in the original MM I see a lot of varied monsters where tactical considerations like terrain and positioning and range and surprise etc could all come into play, so this concern of EA-level saminess doesn't ring true for me at all.


I have a mockup of it somewhere, but I did some calculations a long while back about how you can replace Action Surge with Superiority Dice + Maneuvers in a way that's very well balanced by adding dice whenever the Fighter would gain an attack (since the value of a SD is roughly the value of an attack). So you'd get 1 die and 1 maneuver at level 2, another die + maneuver at level 5, etc. instead of getting Action Surge. You get a big buff to your Fighter maneuvers when you'd normally get your 2nd Action Surge (like increasing the die size and number of maneuvers) to compensate for the double-Action Surge feature.

Would that involve removing the Battle Master Fighter completely, since they would get four dice and three maneuvers at 3rd level? Seems that would affect the progression above, but maybe I'm not grasping it properly.

[Man_Over_Game]

Would that involve removing the Battle Master Fighter completely, since they would get four dice and three maneuvers at 3rd level? Seems that would affect the progression above, but maybe I'm not grasping it properly.

Nope. Instead of being "Battlemaster with 4 dice and 3 Maneuvers + Action Surge", you'd be "Battlemaster with 5 dice and 4 Maneuvers".

It sounds more boring than before, BUUUT the BM would upgrade the new superiority dice with his own upgrades. Also, each Maneuver inherently adds power to each die, as each Maneuver is another use for each of those dice. For instance, he'd be able to use the 1 die he got at level 2 in 5 different ways while a Champion Fighter was still stuck with his 1 option.

Similarly, the Devotion Paladin isn't a bad or boring Paladin just because it does it better than anyone else does.


Hmm...Lemme see if I can find it...

Found it!

​
Superior Fighter Rules:
Rather than gaining Action Surge at level 2, you gain one Superiority Die and can choose 2 maneuvers from the Battle Master subclass. Your Superiority Die is a 1d8, and you regain it after a Short or Long Rest. You gain an additional Superiority Die at levels 5, 11, 17 and 20 and can change one of your maneuvers at those levels.

At level 17, you gain 2 more maneuvers and your Superiority Die is a 1d10.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That first one sounds a lot like the social version of what people don't like about the OG PHB Ranger's exploration abilities -- it doesn't so much give you an ability as it lets you ignore a pillar. You have X Int, the NPC will listen to you what you have to say, no questions asked. Second one has a similar problem.

You said we shouldn't go around making new systems without any support or checks and balances, but what's a Zone of Negotiable Agreement? I'm not feigning ignorance -- I know what you're trying to say -- but there's nothing in the books that talks about Zones of Negotiable Agreement, so we're making up new mechanics there.

I don't mean to be difficult, but I want to point out that it's hard to make high-level social abilities that aren't just "Screw it, different flavor of Charm," maybe harder than what you initially suggested when you came at OldTrees1 with the "Yeah, no" attitude.
.

I think that's more about me being compressed here and not actually writing out the full details in 5e rules-speak.

On the first one, what I meant is "they won't automatically reject everything you say." That doesn't mean they'll, in the end, agree. But it does get you past the "they just attack anyway". And it's not about you having that INT, it's about the target having that INT. Basically that means it doesn't work against things like oozes and near-mindless creatures. So you can't talk your way past a golem, but you can at least try to talk your way past a human guard. Even one who doesn't like you. Doesn't guarantee success, but it does at least make the attempt possible. They'll still count as hostile (ie the best you can do is "takes little or no risk to do what you say"), but that's better than DC: Nope to even get them to hesitate with "roll initiative".

On the ZONA thing, that's marketing/negotiation speak for "the range of things they'll accept, regardless of how persuasive you are." You can never get someone to accept something outside of their ZONA (by definition). So in 5e-speak, that's "you know what things are off limits and you know how far you can press with a DC 0/DC 20 ability check." A more formalized Wisdom (Insight) check to read the person. You still have to make the check, you still have to make the argument, but you won't tread on any hidden landmines by asking for something that the NPC will just reject out of hand.

And I totally accept that it's hard to make high-level social abilities. Which is why my default is "don't make those." I don't want a formalized system for social or exploration checks (using "checks" broadly here). Because that's so context and world-sensitive that any such system will not work very well. Frankly, the social system in place works just fine. And those things don't need buttons to press. Codifying everything like combat just turns it into a board game IMO.

But OldTrees1's suggestion wasn't even anywhere close to something plausible. Not for power reasons (I could see it working in some games that don't care about setting at all or where setting is a consensus reality like the Mage games), but because it's intriniscally inimical to the idea of a coherent setting. And that's what I care about most. I can adjust for power. I can't adjust for "random civilization pops into existence (where? with what parameters? with what history?) just because you selected from a menu at level up." That makes any kind of coherent worldbuilding absolutely impossible. And that much is obvious on the face. So suggesting it in seriousness (ie not blue) is a sign that the proposed framework has massive holes in it and likely cannot be salvaged without a substantial re-definition.

I think the core of all of this is that there is not broad agreement on what it means for something to be "high level" or "low level" or (more generally) what the supported "power levels" and "player-initiated state transitions" are for the game (other than the obvious "something gained at level 20 is definitionally higher level than something gained at level 1" tautology).

[OldTrees1]

Respectfully, I'm not aware of any rule saying I have to immerse myself in an entire "subthread" (however such a concept is even defined) in order to express my opinion on a single idea or post. My statement pertained to the main subject of martial power and mechanics, and I thus believe it to be on-topic for the thread.

Respectfully, interrupting strawmen are not very polite. Context was relevant and the misrepresentation was aggravating. It would have been less aggravating if it came with the concession of answering Abracadangit's question rather than just misrepresenting my answer. Then it would have been misrepresenting my words, and answering an honest question. 1 out of 2 isn't as bad. Sorry for being so prickly about the strawman.

Edit: And PhoenixPhyre is just going to parade around their strawman. I give up.

But OldTrees1's suggestion
If you are going to continue to misrepresent my comment and completely ignore the context, please remove my name.

I will never understand why you decided to misrepresent it with things like "civilization pops into existence".

[Aimeryan]

Wizards are absolutely more complex out of the gate than most if not all martial classes. But I think everyone, including new players and even brand new GMs expect them to be, so there's no issue there. The issue is not that no class can ever have the potential for analysis paralysis, the issue is that it should be on the classes where it is expected (prepared casters.)

Sure, if what was being discussed was looking to do that I could then see the issue. I'll take the point you are making as a warning of going too far, rather than a warning against the current discussion.



Looking at the CR 11-20 bracket just in the original MM I see a lot of varied monsters where tactical considerations like terrain and positioning and range and surprise etc could all come into play, so this concern of EA-level saminess doesn't ring true for me at all.

I would see this as a level 6-10 encounter at the current caster capabilities, which is where we have discussed the peak of current martials being at. The discussion is how to rise martials to being able to take on higher level encounters than this - whereby, higher level here isn't a number but a capability. Are there encounters higher level than this currently? No, because martials would not be able to compete in them. It is a self-fulfilling argument.

[Pex]

I'm not saying your Champion character can't interact with the other pillars, I'm saying their choice to use that subclass is mostly a nonfactor in whether the player does or not. Remarkable Athlete gives some minor bonuses to Exploration but that's pretty much it, and you're getting that right as other classes are beginning to access things like flight and teleportation.

There's nothing wrong with that if the player is having fun, but I'd expect a Champion player to know that most of their interaction with those other pillars will be driven primarily by ability checks and roleplay rather than features.

We come full circle on this. Some people are fine there are no class button powers to push for non-combat things while others want them. It's obviously possible for both sides to be happy. Have one class without the buttons and another class with the buttons. The problem arises when those who want the buttons complain the class without the buttons exists.



Frankly, I think that's going to be the hardest part. I think the easiest way to do it is just decide what the most overpowered thing you could plausibly do at level 20 with every single skill. Then decide if each example is too strong or too weak for 5e at that level, and then add level 10 examples, repeating the process until you have a solid outline for almost all levels that suits the power level folks are looking for.

Question is, what's a max-rolled, level 20 History Check going to do that a DM might consider too OP?[/FONT]

I agree, but that would require example DC tables and some people are vehemently opposed to that idea. I hope 5.5E does this in 2024 and 6E in the hypothetical future.

[Psyren]

It would have been less aggravating if it came with the concession of answering Abracadangit's question rather than just misrepresenting my answer.

"I don't think this is a good idea" is an answer, even if it is one he (or you) may not particularly like, or find aggravating irritating.
With that said, I've since provided clearer examples of what I think appealing social class features are, like the Tasha's Maneuvers.


Nope. Instead of being "Battlemaster with 4 dice and 3 Maneuvers + Action Surge", you'd be "Battlemaster with 5 dice and 4 Maneuvers".

Okay cool, I wasn't clear on that when you said "another die + maneuver at level 5" which sounded like a grand total of two each rather than 5+4.

One thing I'd be wary of here is the "wild shape problem"; where every subclass gets access to the {defining thing}, but the one designed around it completely walks all over the others, especially at low levels. I don't think Battle Master with even more superiority dice and maneuvers would beat Echo/Rune Knight, but I think it would be close for a lot of the game, and it would definitely outshine the rest.


I think that's more about me being compressed here and not actually writing out the full details in 5e rules-speak.

On the first one, what I meant is "they won't automatically reject everything you say." That doesn't mean they'll, in the end, agree. But it does get you past the "they just attack anyway". And it's not about you having that INT, it's about the target having that INT. Basically that means it doesn't work against things like oozes and near-mindless creatures. So you can't talk your way past a golem, but you can at least try to talk your way past a human guard. Even one who doesn't like you. Doesn't guarantee success, but it does at least make the attempt possible. They'll still count as hostile (ie the best you can do is "takes little or no risk to do what you say"), but that's better than DC: Nope to even get them to hesitate with "roll initiative".

On the ZONA thing, that's marketing/negotiation speak for "the range of things they'll accept, regardless of how persuasive you are." You can never get someone to accept something outside of their ZONA (by definition). So in 5e-speak, that's "you know what things are off limits and you know how far you can press with a DC 0/DC 20 ability check." A more formalized Wisdom (Insight) check to read the person. You still have to make the check, you still have to make the argument, but you won't tread on any hidden landmines by asking for something that the NPC will just reject out of hand.

I kind of get what you were going for - but you should always be able to try to talk your way past a human guard, there's no need to make an ability for that. Making that a class feature just makes the "DC: nopes" that much more common, (for everyone without it, including the very class who gets that ability before the level where it comes online), which makes the game worse imo. This in my view is the biggest faceplant Pathfinder 1 made with its own interaction and exploration systems - by making specific feats and features for so many things in those pillars, both players and GMs felt a lot more constrained in terms of what kinds of attempts they could even try or allow. (The old joke of PF1 players needing the right feats to go to the bathroom is hyperbole, but also doesn't feel that far off in play.)

One of 5e's biggest strengths was getting away from all that. I think proficiency is still a tiny bit undercooked in some spots, and the fact that it took so long to tie Intelligence to a non-Int-caster character's skills even in such a limited way was pretty unfortunate, but there's a much bigger sense that players have the freedom to just try stuff in this edition and I can see the appeal to that for the non-combat pillars and their storytelling potential.


And I totally accept that it's hard to make high-level social abilities. Which is why my default is "don't make those." I don't want a formalized system for social or exploration checks (using "checks" broadly here). Because that's so context and world-sensitive that any such system will not work very well. Frankly, the social system in place works just fine. And those things don't need buttons to press. Codifying everything like combat just turns it into a board game IMO.

100% agreed. Testify!



I would see this as a level 6-10 encounter at the current caster capabilities, which is where we have discussed the peak of current martials being at. The discussion is how to rise martials to being able to take on higher level encounters than this - whereby, higher level here isn't a number but a capability. Are there encounters higher level than this currently? No, because martials would not be able to compete in them. It is a self-fulfilling argument.

The challenge rating numbers are what I care about though. I have no need of a fighter that has the same "capability" as a wizard, if it can still defeat a CR-appropriate challenge at the end of the day.


We come full circle on this. Some people are fine there are no class button powers to push for non-combat things while others want them. It's obviously possible for both sides to be happy. Have one class without the buttons and another class with the buttons. The problem arises when those who want the buttons complain the class without the buttons exists.

I don't see why the only buttons that need to exist are class buttons, and especially subclass buttons.
Man_Over_Game's idea for example, creates a universal set of "buttons" that every martial can access, using the same resource as the Battlemaster Fighter. They're based on a subclass feature, but elevated to a state that makes them class (and subclass)-agnostic.

[Morty]

Oh, 100%. It seems like they even riffed on the existing classes in some ways -- like their monk analog is the "adept," and the Eastern-themed monk is a subclass, while other subclasses include a rough-and-rowdy brawler and a sort of "sacred fist"-style holy athlete.

But yeah, when you're stuck with the old paradigms, then the maneuvers are gonna be made to fit them instead of the other way around.

I've come to realize that the D&D fighter is such a complete design dead end that any mechanics using it are flawed on the outset. 4E came closest to fixing it, but it's marred by its contrast with rogues and rangers. But there's nothing the ENworld people could do other than try their best within those constraints, I guess. People are really attached to something that barely even qualifies as a class, turns out.

[Hytheter]

I've come to realize that the D&D fighter is such a complete design dead end that any mechanics using it are flawed on the outset. 4E came closest to fixing it, but it's marred by its contrast with rogues and rangers. But there's nothing the ENworld people could do other than try their best within those constraints, I guess. People are really attached to something that barely even qualifies as a class, turns out.

I don't really understand this idea that the Fighter is somehow a "Design dead end" on a conceptual level or that it "barely even qualifies as a class." What's your alternative?

[Ignimortis]

I don't really understand this idea that the Fighter is somehow a "Design dead end" on a conceptual level or that it "barely even qualifies as a class." What's your alternative?

Fighter is a class that is qualified only by being good at fighting in a somewhat stylistically constrained way in a game that is focused on everyone being decent at fighting. Fighter has to be worse than Rogue at skills, Fighter has to be less mystical than Monk, Fighter has to be more conventional than Barbarian, and Fighter cannot be so good at fighting as to invalidate other classes.

Here's the thing: if Fighter was designed in the same way that Wizard is, we wouldn't have Rogue or Barbarian, quite possibly no Paladin or Ranger, and even possibly no Monk. All of their stuff would be inside that nu-Fighter's "build your own Fighter" kit.

[Morty]

I don't really understand this idea that the Fighter is somehow a "Design dead end" on a conceptual level or that it "barely even qualifies as a class." What's your alternative?

In a system designed around strong, defining archetypes, the fighter's identity boils down to "there's nothing particularly special about you". They attack with weapons, that's it. And they exist alongside classes as specialized as barbarians, monks, rangers and warlocks. Several other martial classes could easily become fighter subclasses - which wouldn't be a good idea in any way, but it could happen, because they're all "fights with weapons and" while fighter is just "fights with weapons".

4E gave them some identity by making them specifically martial defenders - but they still had this "generic fightsperson" bent, whereas rogues and rangers had their usual baggage in addition to their source and role.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I'd be wary of here is the "wild shape problem"; where every subclass gets access to the {defining thing}, but the one designed around it completely walks all over the others, especially at low levels. I don't think Battle Master with even more superiority dice and maneuvers would beat Echo/Rune Knight, but I think it would be close for a lot of the game, and it would definitely outshine the rest.

However, almost every other Fighter subclass gets something of value that synergizes with their subclass features.

For instance, the Samurai shifts from an attack-centric Fighter (which we already have a ton of) to an aggressive tank that can taunt enemies while leveraging their THP. They get bonuses to their skills from both the dice and their subclass features, so they're a very well-rounded option. They can also use something like Trip Attack to leverage a feat like Elven Accuracy so that they aren't burning through their 3x-per-day Fighting Spirit feature.

Champions, on the other hand, can improve their crit chances by knocking enemies prone, and possibly leverage some of their other features by grappling enemies.

And the Arcane Archer isn't going to complain if he can combine Superiority maneuvers with his arcane shots.



Regarding balance, I've always found that you're doing good as long as new content is neither stronger than the best existing content or weaker than the worst.

[strangebloke]

"normal guy" is an archetype in itself. It's something people want their character to embody. Yes, paladins and monks and barbarians and even rogues have more specialized archetypal niches but you can't really play "normal guy" with them.

And there are a lot of normal guys in fiction, even fiction that's nominally "high level." Captain America was brought up earlier in the thread, but I'll also mention Rock Lee of Naruto. Obviously Rock Lee would be a monk in a DND context, but within the world of Naruto he's the normal guy with no real magic powers besides being really fast and strong. He's also one of the most beloved characters in the franchise, which really makes you think, doesn't it?:smallamused: Then too you have Saitama from OPM, Boromir from LotR (Aragorn is arguably a ranger), Tavi (and sorta Araris) from Codex Alera, Murphy from Dresden Files, etc. etc.

It's a key archetype.

Fighters seperately are also designed as the most customizable martial, which is itself a niche. If you want to be a fist fighter but not be a monk, you are going to be a fighter. If you want to be a knight but not a paladin you're going to be a fighter.

[Man_Over_Game]

Then too you have Saitama from OPM, Boromir from LotR (Aragorn is arguably a ranger), Tavi (and sorta Araris) from Codex Alera, Murphy from Dresden Files, etc. etc.

It's a key archetype.

Fighters seperately are also designed as the most customizable martial, which is itself a niche. If you want to be a fist fighter but not be a monk, you are going to be a fighter. If you want to be a knight but not a paladin you're going to be a fighter.


Uh...I'll be honest, I'm not sure if that helps your case too much. When the going gets tough and some of those series requires the strongest to survive, several of those characters die so that the heroes can continue.

Which kinda reminds me of how 3.5 had the trope of "The Wizard and his Bodyguard".

[Morty]

Fighters seperately are also designed as the most customizable martial, which is itself a niche. If you want to be a fist fighter but not be a monk, you are going to be a fighter. If you want to be a knight but not a paladin you're going to be a fighter.

Which is the fighter's other major problem, because the class doesn't have, nor has it ever had, enough flexibility to cover those concepts. All those different martial characters made using the fighter class are going to end up doing mostly the same thing in mostly the same ways.

[Man_Over_Game]

Which is the fighter's other major problem, because the class doesn't have, nor has it ever had, enough flexibility to cover those concepts. All those different martial characters made using the fighter class are going to end up doing mostly the same thing in mostly the same ways.

I agree. "Generic" doesn't necessarily mean "Flexible". The Battlemaster is very flexible, being able to do a bunch of different things and do them all fairly well, while also being able to prioritize different solutions. A Samurai is very generic, as it is basically limited to dealing damage or receiving damage, which makes it very rigid despite being able to do things that are always useful.

In terms of the Marvel universe, the Battlemaster is Iron Man, while the Samurai is the Hulk. Having a few Hulk-like options is fine, but the entire class is designed that way, with the Samurai basically being the Fighter 2.0 (a title that probably belongs to the Champion, it just fails at it).

Plus, I do think having some kind of cohesive class mechanic would go a long way. Barbarian subclasses use Rage, Ranger subclasses change your priorities of your spells, Rogues obviously work around Sneak Attack, it's pretty reasonable that Fighters have something similar and they don't. The class bonuses they get would work just as effectively on literally any other class, which ends up making them feel less like they've trained their entire life as perfected fighters and instead makes them feel incredibly...generic.

Even "Training" and "Working Harder" are traits that can make a hero stand out, but Fighters don't carry any implication of that in their mechanics. Heck, there's a reason that casters dip a few levels into Fighter for perks, as opposed to Barbarian, Monk or Rogue, which is kinda telling. And if the Fighter is destined to be this overly-generic soldier that doesn't stand out while still keeping up, then I think that the other Martials should be modified to be unique enough so that being the "Everyman" is a unique compliment instead of a way of saying "Extra generic".

That is, if you want to play something generic, you have to play partially as a Fighter, because nothing else overshadows their specialty in that area. As-is, though, Rogues aren't much different than a Fighter with Mobile, Rangers aren't much more than Druid/Fighter hybrids, so there's a lot of ground to cover.

If being "Generic" is what the Fighter's supposed to be good at, then it has to be special at it.

[strangebloke]

Uh...I'll be honest, I'm not sure if that helps your case too much. When the going gets tough and some of those series requires the strongest to survive, several of those characters die so that the heroes can continue.

Which kinda reminds me of how 3.5 had the trope of "The Wizard and his Bodyguard".
Murphy gets injured (the series sees a lot of the cast get this treatmen tbf) and Boromir dies because he gets isolated from the group (Gimli is also a fighter and sticks around to the end) but the others are either main characters or characters who stick around throughout the entire series.

Which is the fighter's other major problem, because the class doesn't have, nor has it ever had, enough flexibility to cover those concepts. All those different martial characters made using the fighter class are going to end up doing mostly the same thing in mostly the same ways.
I mean.... not really?

I've played a grappling battlemaster warrior who excelled in unarmed combat and locking down medium size foes. He had the social maneuvers which he used to grandstand and play to an audience, and he also had commander's strike so he could do the wrestler thing and grapple someone then get another person to hit them. He wasn't optimal in any sense, but I'd strongly distinguish him from the Eldritch Knight one of my players is using in another campaign, who is a S&B warcaster character optimized around lockdown and AOE debufs, who took ritual caster:wizard to offer utility to the party and is characterized as a hard tough-as-nails magical investigator.

The feats fighter has makes it pretty much inarguably the most customizable non-caster, and it helps that their subclasses are pretty strong overall. The base fighter class is generic, but it is more customizable than say a rogue.

I agree. "Generic" doesn't necessarily mean "Flexible". The Battlemaster is very flexible, being able to do a bunch of different things and do them all fairly well, while also being able to prioritize different solutions. A Samurai is very generic, as it is basically limited to dealing damage or receiving damage, which makes it very rigid despite being able to do things that are always useful.

Mechanical flexibility and generic fluff do correlate. The BM is generic as ice without water but you can do a lot of things with one. Same for the Wizard class as a whole to be honest. Even though you might be tempted to say that the champion or samurai is generic, the truth is that the builds that involve these classes are far less prescripted than say an assassin rogue or a berserker barbarian. Samurai can be archers or great weapon users, they have spare feats they can use to become skill diplomats or wrestlers. You can build a drow GWM samurai who has blindfighting and casts darkness on himself to conserve uses of fighting spirit.

The thing that's irritating about martials generally is that

their builds aren't very flexible. (fighters are the best overall here and that's a problem)
their mechanics are universally quite simple and generally play the same turn-to-turn. The possible exception here is the monk


As I said on the first page, its fine if people want to play incredibly simple characters that's fine, but I'd like to be able to play a rogue that does something other than attack every round and use the same bonus action.

[Pex]

I kind of get what you were going for - but you should always be able to try to talk your way past a human guard, there's no need to make an ability for that. Making that a class feature just makes the "DC: nopes" that much more common, (for everyone without it, including the very class who gets that ability before the level where it comes online), which makes the game worse imo. This in my view is the biggest faceplant Pathfinder 1 made with its own interaction and exploration systems - by making specific feats and features for so many things in those pillars, both players and GMs felt a lot more constrained in terms of what kinds of attempts they could even try or allow. (The old joke of PF1 players needing the right feats to go to the bathroom is hyperbole, but also doesn't feel that far off in play.)

Pathfinder was reamed a new one when in the latter days of 1E they made a feat to allow someone to use Diplomacy in the middle of combat to end the combat by getting a foe to surrender or agree to withdraw. Players and DMs were doing that already for years, even in 3E before Pathfinder. There was never a problem about this that needed fixing. Now that a feat was official it meant offering surrender would never be possible, by RAW, without it. The feat was promptly ignored by everyone. Pathfinder gated too many things behind feats that should have been universal access. Offering DM advice on how to use the Diplomacy skill for PCs to get enemies to surrender during combat would have been fine. The rage was gating it behind a feat.

Note 5E does have a DC table for Persuasion use; it's just hard to find. It's towards the back of the DMG. I forget the page number. I don't think most players, including DMs, know it's there.




I don't see why the only buttons that need to exist are class buttons, and especially subclass buttons.
Man_Over_Game's idea for example, creates a universal set of "buttons" that every martial can access, using the same resource as the Battlemaster Fighter. They're based on a subclass feature, but elevated to a state that makes them class (and subclass)-agnostic.

Depends how universal. Those who want the buttons will complain it's not warrior (fighter) exclusive. It's not enough to have buttons. They have to be fighter exclusive like wizards have their own exclusive stuff via spells. The complaint is sure the fighter can do it, but so can the wizard AND he casts spells for more stuff.

[Psyren]

The Saitama example is telling - the completely normal guy at the gym who literally does do enough pushups to be able to destroy magic users and metahumans with ease is a joke character/parody, because playing that straight without any comedy would result in a setting that falls apart if blown on.


However, almost every other Fighter subclass gets something of value that synergizes with their subclass features.

For instance, the Samurai shifts from an attack-centric Fighter (which we already have a ton of) to an aggressive tank that can taunt enemies while leveraging their THP. They get bonuses to their skills from both the dice and their subclass features, so they're a very well-rounded option. They can also use something like Trip Attack to leverage a feat like Elven Accuracy so that they aren't burning through their 3x-per-day Fighting Spirit feature.

Champions, on the other hand, can improve their crit chances by knocking enemies prone, and possibly leverage some of their other features by grappling enemies.

And the Arcane Archer isn't going to complain if he can combine Superiority maneuvers with his arcane shots.



Regarding balance, I've always found that you're doing good as long as new content is neither stronger than the best existing content or weaker than the worst.

I'm not denying that the other subclasses get stronger from this too, just that it might widen the gap between them and a Battlemaster if the BM is getting even more superiority dice and maneuvers than they do now.

[Ignimortis]

Murphy gets injured (the series sees a lot of the cast get this treatmen tbf) and Boromir dies because he gets isolated from the group (Gimli is also a fighter and sticks around to the end) but the others are either main characters or characters who stick around throughout the entire series.


I have to note that, IIRC, Gimli also doesn't affect the plot in any major way past book 1 of LotR besides being there for most of Aragorn's journey. Legolas also has this problem. The films have given them more screentime than they had in the books.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not denying that the other subclasses get stronger from this too, just that it might widen the gap between them and a Battlemaster if the BM is getting even more superiority dice and maneuvers than they do now.

That's the other thing, though: It's more of the same. The extra maneuvers aren't super helpful, since you're likely going to be using the same 4 maneuvers you'd get as a baseline BM anyway, and you're missing out on all of the cool new stuff you'd get as any other subclass.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder was reamed a new one when in the latter days of 1E they made a feat to allow someone to use Diplomacy in the middle of combat to end the combat by getting a foe to surrender or agree to withdraw. Players and DMs were doing that already for years, even in 3E before Pathfinder. There was never a problem about this that needed fixing. Now that a feat was official it meant offering surrender would never be possible, by RAW, without it. The feat was promptly ignored by everyone. Pathfinder gated too many things behind feats that should have been universal access. Offering DM advice on how to use the Diplomacy skill for PCs to get enemies to surrender during combat would have been fine. The rage was gating it behind a feat.

Precisely. Of all my criticisms of Paizo this might be the biggest one. And by all accounts 2e has doubled down on it.


Depends how universal. Those who want the buttons will complain it's not warrior (fighter) exclusive. It's not enough to have buttons. They have to be fighter exclusive like wizards have their own exclusive stuff via spells. The complaint is sure the fighter can do it, but so can the wizard AND he casts spells for more stuff.

I could envision ways to direct this more at to martials. e.g. "When you gain the Extra Attack or Expertise features..." {ability improves}

You'd still be getting some primary caster builds going for that increase, but they'd be sacrificing a lot more magically to do so, albeit less than they would in prior editions.


That's the other thing, though: It's more of the same. The extra maneuvers aren't super helpful, since you're likely going to be using the same 4 maneuvers you'd get as a baseline BM anyway, and you're missing out on all of the cool new stuff you'd get as any other subclass.

Yeah it's probably just paranoia on my part. I'd have to math it out vs. something like EK or RK to get a better feel.

[Amechra]

In a system designed around strong, defining archetypes, the fighter's identity boils down to "there's nothing particularly special about you". They attack with weapons, that's it. And they exist alongside classes as specialized as barbarians, monks, rangers and warlocks. Several other martial classes could easily become fighter subclasses - which wouldn't be a good idea in any way, but it could happen, because they're all "fights with weapons and" while fighter is just "fights with weapons".

4E gave them some identity by making them specifically martial defenders - but they still had this "generic fightsperson" bent, whereas rogues and rangers had their usual baggage in addition to their source and role.

It doesn't help that the 5e Fighter has a mechanically potent but incredibly generic core chassis. I think it might actually be the only mundane class that has no ribbons outside of its subclasses? And in a system where skills and background features were more robust, that'd be fine... but as it stands, both types of features basically do as much as your DM thinks they should.

...

Honestly, I think that martial characters have a hidden disadvantage when it comes to them being able to do cool stuff — they have to include everything they can do on their class tables, and casters don't.

If you want to make a Cleric feel more religious-y, you can just add a spell like Ceremony to their spell list — sure, your adventuring Cleric isn't likely to prepare a spell for baptisms and marriages any time soon, but knowing that they could if they needed to helps support the class fiction. Compare that to how, say, the Monk "spends" a level on Timeless Body or how the Barbarian "spends" a feature on Unarmored Defense — just like Ceremony those features are super thematic but aren't going to come up very often. Unlike Ceremony, they have to fit into the itty-bitty table that lists those classes' class features.

The Wizard class table looks really empty, but that's just because it cheats and hides the "you add two spells to your spell book" and "you can prepare an extra spell" class features that it gets at every single level under a single umbrella feature.

[strangebloke]

The Saitama example is telling - the completely normal guy at the gym who literally does do enough pushups to be able to destroy magic users and metahumans with ease is a joke character/parody, because playing that straight without any comedy would result in a setting that falls apart if blown on.
The joke with Saitama is how strong he is, not that he is (relative to genos or tatsu) a normal dude. There are a lot of guys like Saitama in the series, who are relatively bland from the perspective of what they can do but are treated as very real and serious heroic figures, often more heroic than the people with cool powers, to the extent that you have someone like King who's able to save entire cities simply by virtue of being really good at lying and intimidating people.

I have to note that, IIRC, Gimli also doesn't affect the plot in any major way past book 1 of LotR besides being there for most of Aragorn's journey. Legolas also has this problem. The films have given them more screentime than they had in the books.
He's pretty pivotal in the battle of helm's deep where he stops an incursion into the caves by himself. He helps keep the other main characters alive at various points simply by being present and fighting good. He's not the most impactful but I don't think you can really say that's a result of him being a 'fighter.' After all the hobbits are even more impactful and far less capable.

Matt Collville joked that if LOTR was a DND campaign, Legolas and Gimli must have been played by a bunch of murderhobo players who mostly ignored the plot and were just there to hang.


Honestly, I think that martial characters have a hidden disadvantage when it comes to them being able to do cool stuff — they have to include everything they can do on their class tables, and casters don't.

That's what I been tryin to tell these people. Casters get stronger over time within any given niche because they get new spells in every single splat, which guarantees that some of these spells will be broken or will allow them to perform in a niche they couldn't before (HELLO booming blade) or synergize with some other option to be really strong. Imagine a world where the BM got like three new maneuvers with every splat book, and got the ability to select like three more maneuvers total between levels 3 and 7. The BM got a lot stronger just from getting access to the maneuvers in TCOE.

[Dr.Samurai]

I have to note that, IIRC, Gimli also doesn't affect the plot in any major way past book 1 of LotR besides being there for most of Aragorn's journey. Legolas also has this problem. The films have given them more screentime than they had in the books.
Lol, meanwhile, the guy chopping weapon hafts into bits, chopping orc hands off at the wrist, surprising Gollum with his strength (Gollum routinely chokes out orcs), killing the orcs of Cirith Ungol, and dealing a grievous blow to Shelob that not even warriors of the First Age could inflict, is a fighter named Samwise Gamgee, and he carried Frodo up the side of Mt. Doom to deliver the ring to its destruction.

*Cue all the people arguing that Sam is clearly a spellcaster like a bard or paladin*

[Amechra]

Samwise Gamgee is clearly a rogue.

[Dr.Samurai]

Samwise Gamgee is clearly a rogue.
I disagree but I also don't think it makes too much difference as rogues are also normal martials.

[Amechra]

I mean, my actual opinion is that, in a D&D context, the hobbits aren't actually "player characters", as such — everyone playing the game has their main character (Aragorn, Boromir/Eowyn, Gimli, and Legolas) and is responsible for roleplaying as one of the hobbits. Gandalf is, of course, a DMPC.

[Morty]

Sam Gamgee doesn't have any of the classes meant for player characters, because the point of his character is that he's a gardener, not a warrior, hero or magician.

[Dr.Samurai]

Rather, the point is that anyone, with the proper courage, loyalty, and will, can overcome obstacles and oppose evil.

Unless you just minimize all of his feats because he doesn’t cast spells. He literally rescues Frodo from Shelob and the orcs of Mordor by fighting but we’re supposed to be like “nah, just a gardener, more of an npc really, not worthy of a pc class”.


Edit: Sam is absolutely a hero.

Lmao, imagine Sam and Frodo returning to the Shire and everyone is like “what’s the big deal?”. People say the darndest things in this thread.

[Morty]

Rather, the point is that anyone, with the proper courage, loyalty, and will, can overcome obstacles and oppose evil.

Unless you just minimize all of his feats because he doesn’t cast spells. He literally rescues Frodo from Shelob and the orcs of Mordor by fighting but we’re supposed to be like “nah, just a gardener, more of an npc really, not worthy of a pc class”.


Edit: Sam is absolutely a hero.

Lmao, imagine Sam and Frodo returning to the Shire and everyone is like “what’s the big deal?”. People say the darndest things in this thread.

:smallconfused: I have no clue where you're getting any of that and from whose post. Sam saves the world through his bravery, loyalty and refusal to give up. Not through martial skills or magic. So he's not going to be represented by any D&D class.

(Also, people in the Shire kind of did say "what's the big deal" when Sam and Frodo came back)

[Talakeal]

Fair point in theory, however, in practice this shouldn't affect martials in 5e -Wizards get more level 1 spells to choose from (nevermind other features) than any one martial get features across the whole 20 levels. Valid point, though. Of course, not relevant to this discussion at this time as no one is advocating even close to such an extreme as condensing all of a martials features they currently get into one level.




As Sindeloke alludes, this is not about what martials can currently fight at level 20 (or 15), since I do not believe anyone has mentioned level 20 martials are unable to handle the level 20 encounters of 5e. Theorectically, if 5e had a level 100 encounter that involved runing up to something and hitting it over the head with a hammer to win then martials would have no problem at that level, either - presuming the stats were scaled as required.

The argument here is this; is running up and hitting something over the head with a hammer a level 100 encounter? Is it even a level 10 encounter? I would argue, and this is where I think we are seeing divergence in what people want, that this type of encounter is little more than a level 1-5 encounter, just with bigger numbers. This to me is not a high level encounter, and this is where we are stuck at with 5e's desire to both have super simple martials and yet allow them to (easily, in fact) win encounters at high level.

Is it developer laziness? Inability to develop high level monsters and encounters? Is it just a realisation that they can make minimal effort and reap in cash from the audience that has came in (much like EA with the Fifa series, or Activision with the COD series)? Or have we, the audience, failed to ask for more? Do we dare? I do.

What about people who like playing games where they can defeat liches, dragons, krakens, and arch demons by running up and hitting it with a hammer?

And, I would argue, that most people who want to take that ability away don't really want to genuinely play a different type of game, they just want the game to cater to their specific fantasy of defeating monsters by flying up and hitting them in the head with a fireball.


I'm not saying your Champion character can't interact with the other pillars, I'm saying their choice to use that subclass is mostly a nonfactor in whether the player does or not. Remarkable Athlete gives some minor bonuses to Exploration but that's pretty much it, and you're getting that right as other classes are beginning to access things like flight and teleportation.

There's nothing wrong with that if the player is having fun, but I'd expect a Champion player to know that most of their interaction with those other pillars will be driven primarily by ability checks and roleplay rather than features.

Yeah, but it would be nice if there was some middle ground.

Like most spells in d&d are win-buttons that just ignore challenges entirely; you don't take teleport to make travel more fun, you take teleport to skip travel completely. Likewise one of the common complaints with the ranger is that they don’t make wilderness survival more interesting, they just make it a non factor.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yeah, but it would be nice if there was some middle ground.

Like most spells in d&d are win-buttons that just ignore challenges entirely; you don't take teleport to make travel more fun, you take teleport to skip travel completely. Likewise one of the common complaints with the ranger is that they don’t make wilderness survival more interesting, they just make it a non factor.

Not most, some. Consider Disguise Self, Sleep, Minor Illusion, Message, or Detect Thoughts. A lot of spells don't bypass problems, they let you make different ones. These are the kinds of tools I'd like to see for Martials.

Plus, not all problems are fun to solve the hard way. We could all be dealing with Encumbrance right now, so thank your rules-lenient DMs that you're not.

[Amechra]

Unless you just minimize all of his feats because he doesn’t cast spells. He literally rescues Frodo from Shelob and the orcs of Mordor by fighting but we’re supposed to be like “nah, just a gardener, more of an npc really, not worthy of a pc class”.

It's not that he's not worthy of a PC class, it's that the whole point of Sam's character is that he's a country boy who helped save the world by being steadfastly loyal and utterly sensible. And that's not something that D&D's class system is really interested in — D&D's class system is more interested in asking how you beat up monsters, which isn't the hobbit's deal.

And no, the fact that Sam stabbed Shelob with a magic dagger to make her leave Frodo alone doesn't make him any kind of warrior. Heck, if you called him a Fighter to his face, he'd probably be offended.

[Pex]

:smallconfused: I have no clue where you're getting any of that and from whose post. Sam saves the world through his bravery, loyalty and refusal to give up. Not through martial skills or magic. So he's not going to be represented by any D&D class.

(Also, people in the Shire kind of did say "what's the big deal" when Sam and Frodo came back)

The Hobbits are an isolated people ignorant of the world around them. They get to live in bliss because of the world around them making it so, except for the Nonsense of Saruman since the world around them was busy with other things. They cannot comprehend the deeds of Frodo and Sam. That takes nothing away from the deeds themselves.

[Amechra]

The Hobbits are an isolated people ignorant of the world around them. They get to live in bliss because of the world around them making it so, except for the Nonsense of Saruman since the world around them was busy with other things. They cannot comprehend the deeds of Frodo and Sam. That takes nothing away from the deeds themselves.

Yeah, hobbits don't care if you're good at fighting — they value a good cook or gardener way more than someone who stabs people.

[Aimeryan]

What about people who like playing games where they can defeat liches, dragons, krakens, and arch demons by running up and hitting it with a hammer?

And, I would argue, that most people who want to take that ability away don't really want to genuinely play a different type of game, they just want the game to cater to their specific fantasy of defeating monsters by flying up and hitting them in the head with a fireball.

Are they fighting liches, dragons, krakens, and arch demons, though? Or, are they fighting meatbag#59 described as a lich, a dragon, a kraken, or an arch demon? These encounters are more than a name, or at least they should be.

[Gurgeh]

So 5e liches aren't true Scotsmen, then?

[Aimeryan]

So 5e liches aren't true Scotsmen, then?


Some be, some not be.

In seriousness though, if the DM wants to make encounters with such legendary monsters as being an encounter where you just run up and hit with a hammer, next encounter, then so be it. In my opinion, high level encounters should be high level. If they are not, then perhaps there is a good reason high level sees so little play?

This is all subjective, as I mentioned in my post up-thread. The point we need to establish is what we all see high level encounters as being. Talakeal may just be posing a question, in which I answer that I don't see those as encounters worthy of the name. As this is a game I have that right. If everyone else wants clicker-hero level encounters at high level then I am in a minority and might as well just head off. If not, then maybe the announcement of 5.5e is a good time to push for want we want.

The real point, though, is that it is a lot easier to nerf encounters to simplicity by a DM then it is to do the opposite. In fact, you could just take the stat block of some lower level encounter and just name it 'Dragon' or 'Archlich', raising the stats if necessary. Cutting content is a lot lot easier than making it for a DM, so the weight should be on the developers to make that content for those it is desired.

[Jakinbandw]

Cutting content is a lot lot easier than making it for a DM, so the weight should be on the developers to make that content for those it is desired.

You'd be surprised.

[strangebloke]

Are they fighting liches, dragons, krakens, and arch demons, though? Or, are they fighting meatbag#59 described as a lich, a dragon, a kraken, or an arch demon? These encounters are more than a name, or at least they should be.

If you're saying that you don't want high level encounters to be resolved by reducing the enemy to zero hitpoints, then yes, I am going to strongly disagree.

High level play is made to feel high level not just by big numbers but by the number of player/dm interactions that happen in a single turn.

At low level you run up and hit the zombie.

At high level, you click your boots of flying and zoom up to strike at the lich who's cackling madly. You make a wisdom saving throw as you draw near to overcome the aura of the demon the lich has bound, and you overcome it and roll well on your attack but the lich throws up a shield but the wizard casts counterspell so your attack goes through and you use one of your SD for a grappling strike which forces both grapples the lich and forces them to make a concentration save to maintain the banishment spell that has trapped the party cleric. The lich fails the save but uses one of their three legendary resistance abilities.

....and then you action surge.

5e is a lot of work at high level and its horribly imbalanced, but it does feel high powered. I would say it could be better but by that same token its not bad.

[Aimeryan]

If you're saying that you don't want high level encounters to be resolved by reducing the enemy to zero hitpoints, then yes, I am going to strongly disagree.

...what?

Alright, I'm out; too much straw floating around in here.

[strangebloke]

...what?

Alright, I'm out; too much straw floating around in here.

I genuinely don't know what else you could mean when you say "something that isn't defeated by running up to it and hitting it with a hammer."

[Dr.Samurai]

:smallconfused: I have no clue where you're getting any of that and from whose post. Sam saves the world through his bravery, loyalty and refusal to give up. Not through martial skills or magic. So he's not going to be represented by any D&D class.
"Not through martial skills"

This really speaks to some of the differences in conception that both sides of the discussion have. If I bring up Captain America, he's not a badass normal, he's clearly superhuman and beyond the scope. If I bring up Aragorn, there is no way he can be conceptualized as high level. Now Samwise literally fighting his way through Mordor against orcs and giant spider demons, and "he's just a gardener, he didn't save everyone through martial skill".

It seems there will always be a nitpick or some way to reconceptualize a character so as not to say they are an example of a fighter or badass normal.

With all due respect but... Sam kills orcs in melee combat. At Balin's Tomb and in Mordor. And he's not landing sneak attacks on them, he's chopping a spear in half, he's chopping off an orc's hand, he's withstanding the full physical force of Shelob so that she impales herself, after taking one of her eyes and one of her legs. The position that "hobbits don't have class levels" is completely arbitrary. The idea that "they represent normal people" is exactly the idea that we are putting forth. If you want to play a normal person that goes on an adventure and kills orcs and giant spiders with a sword, you play a fighter. If you want to play someone that can climb a cliff while carrying full gear, or scale a mountain while carrying a comrade, or wrestle Gollum, you play a fighter.

Like... I can literally roll up a Stout Halfling Fighter with the "Gardener" background and BOOM I'm playing Samwise Gamgee.

(Also, people in the Shire kind of did say "what's the big deal" when Sam and Frodo came back)
More like "Help, we're being oppressed by Sharkey and his ruffians", to which Sam and the others engaged in a battle and retook the Shire. And not by gardening, it was by some other means... something to do with... weapons and... fighting... :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

I genuinely don't know what else you could mean when you say "something that isn't defeated by running up to it and hitting it with a hammer."

He is designing No True Lichsman fights where if there's even a shred of a chance of 4 fighters winning, it clearly wasn't a real lich.

[Gurgeh]

Pour one out for Beowulf's tragic victory over meatbag#59.

[Ignimortis]

He's pretty pivotal in the battle of helm's deep where he stops an incursion into the caves by himself. He helps keep the other main characters alive at various points simply by being present and fighting good. He's not the most impactful but I don't think you can really say that's a result of him being a 'fighter.' After all the hobbits are even more impactful and far less capable.


Exactly. LotR is not D&D, and the plot importance of a character has nothing to do with their capability of slaying orcs, because it's a story. However, D&D is not designed to replicate LotR, and the well-known DM of the Rings shows that well enough. It was always more along the lines of fantasy with lots of fighting in it — the Conan stories where the hero routinely has to fend off assassins, sorcerers and monsters, and actively pursues them in search of riches and glory.


Lol, meanwhile, the guy chopping weapon hafts into bits, chopping orc hands off at the wrist, surprising Gollum with his strength (Gollum routinely chokes out orcs), killing the orcs of Cirith Ungol, and dealing a grievous blow to Shelob that not even warriors of the First Age could inflict, is a fighter named Samwise Gamgee, and he carried Frodo up the side of Mt. Doom to deliver the ring to its destruction.

*Cue all the people arguing that Sam is clearly a spellcaster like a bard or paladin*

And all of that happens not because Sam is good at fighting, but because Sam is the epitome of loyalty, bravery and self-sacrifice that Tolkien saw in common men during WW1. Sam wouldn't make a good D&D character. He's only on an adventure because his friend and master went on an adventure, unaware of the sheer hardships he'd have to face - and Sam ends up carrying him from the moment it gets actually tough to even survive the day.

Sam is, in D&D terms, a Commoner. Or an Expert, considering how good his gardening skills are. Fighting is not core to his character, fighting is what he has to do to save Frodo. Sam's not fighting his way through Mordor — he takes out Snaga (and lets Shagrat run away, by the way) because he has no choice, and they sneak through Mordor the rest of the way. Same with Shelob - this is a mythic moment of a hero triumphing over a monster in few key strokes, not something that D&D represents well in any way. You can't really stat Shelob as described in the books and have Samwise Gamgee, who would struggle to win even against two orcs at once, kill it reliably. It only works because it's a story.

[Xervous]

LotR was run in a narrative system where “venture to mount doom with certain death for hobbits along the way” was taken as scenery rather than a suggestion for what consequences their decisions could have. The adventure is the chance for Frodo to slip into gloom, for Samwise to prove his dedication, for Legolas and Gimli to become friends, Merry and Pippin to rise above their humble prankster status, Aragorn to realize he needs to accept his heritage, and Boromir to die knowing he did the right thing at the end after his previous failings.

As an adventure path for D&D it would be somewhat dull with all the running away. As a sandbox or living world Frodo has no reason to commit suicide by adventure on this statistically ludicrous quest.

Sam accomplishing all he did is certainly a statement of something, but it’s not a statement that the D&D structure readily provides.

[Brookshw]

Exactly. LotR is not D&D, and the plot importance of a character has nothing to do with their capability of slaying orcs, because it's a story. However, D&D is not designed to replicate LotR, and the well-known DM of the Rings shows that well enough. It was always more along the lines of fantasy with lots of fighting in it — the Conan stories where the hero routinely has to fend off assassins, sorcerers and monsters, and actively pursues them in search of riches and glory. D&D's not designed to replicate a lot of stories people are using as the basis for what martials can do; people have proposed the basis of martials being rooted in MCU, anime, cherry picked historical figures/myths, etc. As that's become the basis for discussion of what a martial is/should be, I don't know that we can draw a line and say "but not that story, and not that character in the story", feels a bit arbitrary.


Sam wouldn't make a good D&D character. He's only on an adventure because his friend and master went on an adventure, unaware of the sheer hardships he'd have to face - and Sam ends up carrying him from the moment it gets actually tough to even survive the day. Isn't that something along the lines of a reluctant hero adventurer trope? Adventurer starts adventuring because they feel forced to in order to protect someone they care about?

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes this does ring as arbitrary. In any other conversation we’d be arguing about whether Gandalf is a wizard or a Druid or even a fighter with magic initiate lol. Or if Aragorn is a ranger or fighter. This thread was even arguing about what level Aragorn is. Now that I put forth that Sam would be a fighter the argument is that these characters are not even appropriate to speak about in D&D terms.

What is the standard we should go by so that it doesn’t seem like some people are framing things in whatever way it takes to demonstrate non-magic fighters are a lost cause in D&D?

[Xervous]

Yes this does ring as arbitrary. In any other conversation we’d be arguing about whether Gandalf is a wizard or a Druid or even a fighter with magic initiate lol. Or if Aragorn is a ranger or fighter. This thread was even arguing about what level Aragorn is. Now that I put forth that Sam would be a fighter the argument is that these characters are not even appropriate to speak about in D&D terms.

What is the standard we should go by so that it doesn’t seem like some people are framing things in whatever way it takes to demonstrate non-magic fighters are a lost cause in D&D?

As we’re looking at D&D, asking what is appropriate for it, I think it’s reasonable to ask what is the purpose of D&D? The system is a tool, a framework for standardizing the creation of some shared experience. A narrative system capable of encouraging players to engage with and explore the premise of LotR is a system that cares about character emotions and relationships. It won’t let the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field be something that ends a character’s story unless that’s what the group agrees on.

D&D promises a power fantasy of winning because you have bigger better numbers after the previous N things you did. It presumes magic = complex and awesome and provides rules for that. It presumes Attack with Sword is always relevant, and to 5e’s credit they did chop down the functionality on monsters to make this somewhat true.

It’s when you go outside the realm of straightforward numbers that the archetypes get tested. There’s no narrative clause that says it’s cool the hero just barely survives the fall, just rules pointing out the average fall damage is well into the instant kill zone for these characters. Wizard has a spell for that, bird person just flies, human Fighter 6 becomes paste pending raise dead. In a game of explicit definitions and no suggestion that the world works on narrative probability a guy at a statistical disadvantage is a guy at a statistical disadvantage. D&D doesn’t promise a happy place for underdogs on the PC side.

[Morty]

I really don't see what saying that Sam Gamgee isn't a D&D fighter has to do with denying non-magical fighters a place in D&D. If non-magical fighters have a place in D&D, they're still dedicated and prodigiously skilled martial artists; Sam Gamgee sure as heck isn't one. This is a bizarre hill to die on.

[Dr.Samurai]

I really don't see what saying that Sam Gamgee isn't a D&D fighter has to do with denying non-magical fighters a place in D&D. If non-magical fighters have a place in D&D, they're still dedicated and prodigiously skilled martial artists; Sam Gamgee sure as heck isn't one. This is a bizarre hill to die on.
Not dying on a hill. If you say it isn’t relevant, that’s fine. So let’s set the standard. Someone asked about the heroes fighting Thanos and I mentioned that Captain America, a badass normal, is literally the last man standing against Thanos. That was shot down. Aragorn came up as a concept of the fighting man, that was shot down as obviously low level and incapable of being conceptualized at higher levels. Sam is inspired by the soldiers Tolkien fought alongside and saves Frodo by fighting orcs and monsters and being exceptionally strong and enduring, and that is also out of the question as a comparison. So I am asking, what characters or fictional worlds are fair game to point to? It seems that you and others are defining the parameters by refusing to accept any examples given. Please go a step further and just tell us what is allowed.

It also seems that the concept is not fair game and that if we point to an example they have to map precisely mechanically to the game. Is that fair to say as well?

[Talakeal]

...what?

Alright, I'm out; too much straw floating around in here.

The problem is that “run up and hit it with a hammer” could mean a lot of things, many of them pretty straw-manny themselves, leaving us to guess the meaning.

I would presume you mean monsters that are too powerful and / or complex to be defeated by non casters, but it could well mean immunity to weapon damage if taken literally.

I still have yet to see what these monsters that can’t be defeated by marital would look like, let alone the unshackled casters required to fight them.

[Psyren]

The joke with Saitama is how strong he is, not that he is (relative to genos or tatsu) a normal dude. There are a lot of guys like Saitama in the series, who are relatively bland from the perspective of what they can do but are treated as very real and serious heroic figures, often more heroic than the people with cool powers, to the extent that you have someone like King who's able to save entire cities simply by virtue of being really good at lying and intimidating people.

I know the joke with Saitama. The fact remains that it IS a joke. His strength, and equally importantly his means of acquiring it, is not something you can reasonably expect D&D designers to replicate on their classes in play.


That's what I been tryin to tell these people. Casters get stronger over time within any given niche because they get new spells in every single splat, which guarantees that some of these spells will be broken or will allow them to perform in a niche they couldn't before (HELLO booming blade) or synergize with some other option to be really strong. Imagine a world where the BM got like three new maneuvers with every splat book, and got the ability to select like three more maneuvers total between levels 3 and 7. The BM got a lot stronger just from getting access to the maneuvers in TCOE.

The issue behind putting maneuvers in every single splat is that the martial possibility space is finite, while that of magic is infinite. Take Tasha's for example, which added a cluster of summoning spells - that's all content that martials would neither be expected nor in most cases desired to have.


Not most, some. Consider Disguise Self, Sleep, Minor Illusion, Message, or Detect Thoughts. A lot of spells don't bypass problems, they let you make different ones. These are the kinds of tools I'd like to see for Martials.

Plus, not all problems are fun to solve the hard way. We could all be dealing with Encumbrance right now, so thank your rules-lenient DMs that you're not.

Detect Thoughts via some degree of body language reading or tactical appraisal I could see. Disguise Self for certain martials I could buy (yes to rogues and rangers, no to paladins and barbarians.) Message by throwing your voice, okay.

Sleep, nah, unless you mean knocking someone out. No to Minor Illusion as well.

[Brookshw]

I really don't see what saying that Sam Gamgee isn't a D&D fighter has to do with denying non-magical fighters a place in D&D. If non-magical fighters have a place in D&D, they're still dedicated and prodigiously skilled martial artists; Sam Gamgee sure as heck isn't one. This is a bizarre hill to die on.

Not at all, this is one more instance in a long line of them where we get a peak at the assumed premises people have as to what the base line non-magic user is or should be, which is a tangential issue compared to how powerful it should be in comparison to other classes (and, potentially, other classes compared to them). One of the ambiguities of D&D is that it promises a game where you're heroes of some sort, but doesn't entirely define what that means. Does it mean you might triumph against overwhelming odds through careful planning, luck, stats over a certain threshold, having superhuman powers, or something else? Sure, you're expected to be a cut above, but to start with, as you level, something else, and how far above? People have to make certain assumptions which in turn are inconsistent from the assumptions of others, and lead us to conversations like this happening with some regularity.

[Yakk]

We could make the positional and tactical minigame more interesting.

Surrounded: If you start your turn surrounded by foes and stay such at the end of your turn, you are flanked until the end of your next turn. When flanked, attacks on you by anyone (not just flankers) have advantage.

Rough and Tumble: If you push as an action, bonus action, or as a substitute for an attack and the push succeeds, you can also make a weapon attack. This weapon attack cannot be substituted back to another push.

Tactical Edge: When moving you can attempt to use the environment to create a tactical edge. Make an Acrobatics or Athletics check against a DC determined by the DM. On success, you gain advantage on your attack rolls this turn. Typically the same tactical edge doesn't work twice against the same foes, as they are ready for it, and it must use something unique to the fight's environment to be sufficiently unexpected and effective.

Victor's Spoils: When you score a critical hit or reduce a foe to 0 HP, you can grab, push, threaten, or something similar without expending an action or attack.

Pocket Aces: When you have advantage or disadvantage and your attack hits and both d20s have the same value, it counts as a critical hit.

Ride'em Bronco: You can grab a creature more than 1 size larger than you. If you do so, they are not immobilized, and when they move you move with them. You can also use Dexterity(Acrobatics) to make and sustain such a grab.

Plenty of Opportunity: If you have Extra Attack, you can make additional opportunity attacks equal to the number of attacks you make in an attack action without expending a reaction. You can still make only one opportunity attack on a given turn.

Engage!: If you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack on your turn, and you neither take damage nor fail a saving throw before the start of your next turn, your melee weapon attacks deal maximum damage on your next turn.

...

All of these attempt to give characters who would otherwise just "I attack again" more things to think about and do, optionally.

Surrounded adds a positional minigame, Engage makes ignoring melee foes a problem (and encourages spreading your attacks around), Pocket Aces leverages advantage and accuracy a bit more and makes crits more common, Victor's Spoils gives occasional chances to do "free" skill checks in combat, Rough and Tumble makes repositioning less of a dead-weight loss.

[Man_Over_Game]

Detect Thoughts via some degree of body language reading or tactical appraisal I could see. Disguise Self for certain martials I could buy (yes to rogues and rangers, no to paladins and barbarians.) Message by throwing your voice, okay.

Sleep, nah, unless you mean knocking someone out. No to Minor Illusion as well.

I'm not talking about copying spells as martial abilities, I was referring to the fact that the original comment said that spells were "I win" buttons, which gives a negative connotation regarding the design space spells fill in 5e.

We don't need "I win" buttons for any character, what we need are system-supported tools that a character can use to create unique solutions and to put themselves into noncombat scenarios that each one of them is perfect at. Illusionists love manipulating people. Transmuters love creating crafty solutions using physical objects. These kinds of archetypes don't easily solve problems, since every problem they solve is either expensive (costing resources, spells, etc), or it comes with a negative that could be as much of a problem (such as tricking someone via the Friends cantrip). Either way, it makes the player's problems the ones they choose, the ones they have fun having to deal with.

Those are what I meant by "tools". Not magic or illusions, just ways that Barbarians can use a Barbarian-shaped solution to get themselves into a Barbarian-shaped problem. That could be something like the Barbarian having a connection with the power of "Instinct", or whatever, and being able to provoke that power in others by making them fail an Intelligence check. Or maybe Rangers know exactly how to tick someone off by knowing their cultural weaknesses, using that knowledge to incite them into giving away information or to act irrationally.

Frankly, I don't have a perfect solution, I was just arguing the fact that there is a lot of good that comes from spells, noncombat stuff that adds to the game when it's used appropriately, and that same design space hasn't been able to be used by Martials, not nearly to the same degree.

[strangebloke]

Look ultimately if you want to argue that 5e should be a system where a "guy with a hammer" shouldn't be able to contribute you can, that's great, but that's not the system as it stands. It's certainly possible to conceptualize a "martial" class that would be the strongest class in the game at level 20. Make someone who gets all rogue/fighter/barbarian/monk class features and a bunch of their subclass features, whose stats are all set to 24, who has expertise in every skill... and yeah, you're pretty much there.

Now that's silly.

But its useful as a reference point.


I know the joke with Saitama. The fact remains that it IS a joke. His strength, and equally importantly his means of acquiring it, is not something you can reasonably expect D&D designers to replicate on their classes in play.
You're missing how I said that basically half of the top ten heroes in the setting are "normal guys," just examples of the concept that have been pushed really far.

Metal Bat ain't flashy but he's a normal guy and not a joke character. Same for Bang.


The issue behind putting maneuvers in every single splat is that the martial possibility space is finite, while that of magic is infinite. Take Tasha's for example, which added a cluster of summoning spells - that's all content that martials would neither be expected nor in most cases desired to have.


I mean, you sorta could though? It isn't impossible or even really that hard to give martials access to minionmancy through class features. The OG Beastmaster literally just gave you a specially-trained pet with rules for replacing it if it died. The class was bad but not really because of that specifically.

Just have fun with it, do something like:

Call to Adventure: You blow your horn, a call to any warrior within hearing to come to your aid. Within the next hour, a warrior from the surrounding region (consult table for specifics) comes to aid you in your fight. After the end of the next long rest they leave the party to return to their own business.

Is that too spell like for some people? Maybe, but I don't think it's bad to have this sort of thing as an option.

[Abracadangit]

For what it's worth, the 5e Advanced thing I brought up before has posted a semi-official list of all the maneuvers that will come with their base game:

https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-full-list-of-combat-maneuvers.679115/

No full mechanics on each one, just names & general descriptions.

An interesting read. Some of them sound incredibly situational, and some of them should probably be ribbons, but there's a fair amount of cool ones. And a decent amount of maneuvers that just make sense. Like using your reaction to shoulder-throw someone who misses you, some cool feinting maneuvers based off of Sleight of Hand, a quickdraw attack that lets you use your reaction to draw a ranged weapon and attack as soon as initiative is rolled... some fun & flavorful choices.

[Ignimortis]

D&D's not designed to replicate a lot of stories people are using as the basis for what martials can do; people have proposed the basis of martials being rooted in MCU, anime, cherry picked historical figures/myths, etc. As that's become the basis for discussion of what a martial is/should be, I don't know that we can draw a line and say "but not that story, and not that character in the story", feels a bit arbitrary.

The point has been sort of made in this very thread. To simplify, D&D should not make it possible to play Thor, but we can look at Thor to determine whether a martial character should be able to have similar powers and still count as martial.



Isn't that something along the lines of a reluctant hero adventurer trope? Adventurer starts adventuring because they feel forced to in order to protect someone they care about?

Sam never stops being that. Also, he stops adventuring as soon as he can and doesn't gain any higher proficiency in adventuring, not noticeably so.


Yes this does ring as arbitrary. In any other conversation we’d be arguing about whether Gandalf is a wizard or a Druid or even a fighter with magic initiate lol. Or if Aragorn is a ranger or fighter. This thread was even arguing about what level Aragorn is. Now that I put forth that Sam would be a fighter the argument is that these characters are not even appropriate to speak about in D&D terms.

What is the standard we should go by so that it doesn’t seem like some people are framing things in whatever way it takes to demonstrate non-magic fighters are a lost cause in D&D?

Non-magic fighters are fine. Fighters who never graduate from being comparable only to Sam Gamgee or Aragorn mechanically - aren't, if other characters go way beyond those.

[Dr.Samurai]

The point has been sort of made in this very thread. To simplify, D&D should not make it possible to play Thor, but we can look at Thor to determine whether a martial character should be able to have similar powers and still count as martial.
But what do people mean by "Thor" or, as has been stated more often, "space god"? Because the point I am making is that those terms get bandied about willy nilly in the thread with little definition. We just assume that someone like Thor can be made in the game and/or should be held as some sort of standard. Without explanation, I take it that we all have a concept of "ridiculously powerful person that can fly and is nearly invulnerable and can dish out loads of damage".

But when someone points to a badass martial, suddenly things become less obvious and people start explaining narrative systems and why a comparison to D&D is not helpful.

The reason I mentioned Sam recently is because of the comment that Gimli and Legolas, as examples of martial characters, didn't impact the plot all that much. Sam does, and he is a martial character. He's not a soldier. But he is martial.

Sam never stops being that. Also, he stops adventuring as soon as he can and doesn't gain any higher proficiency in adventuring, not noticeably so.
When they learn about the scouring of the Shire, Gandalf basically tells them "you've leveled up some since we started, you can handle the problem at the Shire". He tells them that with everything they've learned on their journey they can take care of it themselves and he doesn't go with them to liberate the Shire.

It that's not the PCs having leveled up in a game of D&D, I don't know what is.

Non-magic fighters are fine. Fighters who never graduate from being comparable only to Sam Gamgee or Aragorn mechanically - aren't, if other characters go way beyond those.
Well, that's just because that's what I'm familiar with. I believe that there are humans in the earlier ages of LotR that are badass normals. Someone please advise.

But in the end, this is always going to be a matter of perspective. John McClane taking down a fighter jet is akin to a fighter taking out a dragon, but it's considered small potatoes because he didn't do it by wiggling his fingers. Captain America has max Strength and some magic artifacts (his Shield and Mjolnir). He even has 1E style followers. He takes the fight to Thanos and is the last man standing. Doesn't matter. He's not ripping open the fabric of space-time. Murphy in The Dresden Files has plenty of impressive feats against the Supernatural, as do other badass normals in the franchise.

The problem is not that they can't graduate, it's that either it won't be enough for some people, or they will continue to push the "high levels" into the stratosphere. Consider that this thread can barely manage to just talk about 5E DnD precisely so that people can exaggerate the impossible obstacles in the way of high level martials.

[Morty]

Not at all, this is one more instance in a long line of them where we get a peak at the assumed premises people have as to what the base line non-magic user is or should be, which is a tangential issue compared to how powerful it should be in comparison to other classes (and, potentially, other classes compared to them). One of the ambiguities of D&D is that it promises a game where you're heroes of some sort, but doesn't entirely define what that means. Does it mean you might triumph against overwhelming odds through careful planning, luck, stats over a certain threshold, having superhuman powers, or something else? Sure, you're expected to be a cut above, but to start with, as you level, something else, and how far above? People have to make certain assumptions which in turn are inconsistent from the assumptions of others, and lead us to conversations like this happening with some regularity.

That's a good point. D&D has always had a fuzzy idea of its own power level at best and it's much worse with non-magical characters - are they supposed to be realistic? Obviously not, but what's an acceptable break from realism? And when do they stop being realistic? And so on. It's one of the major contributors to this problem. Of course, except for 4E, the idea that they're meant to play second fiddle to spellcasters has been pretty consistent.

[Man_Over_Game]

That's a good point. D&D has always had a fuzzy idea of its own power level at best and it's much worse with non-magical characters - are they supposed to be realistic? Obviously not, but what's an acceptable break from realism? And when do they stop being realistic? And so on. It's one of the major contributors to this problem. Of course, except for 4E, the idea that they're meant to play second fiddle to spellcasters has been pretty consistent.

There's the other question of "What kinds of campaigns do people have at X level?".

There are two questions that have to be addressed: "Where folks/the system thinks the Fighter should be at any given level" and "What kind of problems do you usually face at X level". At level 18, you're probably travelling to different dimensions at least every few weeks, while a level 8 campaign might take place on a flying Artificer city, and I think that every character should be able to follow the ramp-up that campaigns naturally settle into.

That might mean that there's a disconnect between what folks want a Martial to be vs. where they fit in with the system, so compromises might need to be struck, but I think those are a good starting points to figure out so that we can objectively see where those disconnects are and come up with strategies on how to deal with them.


Although, I think it might be best to make separate threads for each of those and then compare the two once we have a good analysis as to what people expect or want. You don't want people to think of "Fun level 18 campaigns for Fighters", just "Fun level 18 campaigns". We have to see exactly where Fighters are now vs. where people want them vs. where they should be, and that means we have to subtract as much bias from the results as possible.

[Brookshw]

That's a good point. D&D has always had a fuzzy idea of its own power level at best and it's much worse with non-magical characters - are they supposed to be realistic? Obviously not, but what's an acceptable break from realism? And when do they stop being realistic? And so on. It's one of the major contributors to this problem. Of course, except for 4E, the idea that they're meant to play second fiddle to spellcasters has been pretty consistent.

Glancing at what I think is the 2e AD&D PHB (think, the cover and first few pages fell off years ago), the examples of fighters run the gambit from Hercules and Beowolf through Little John. Despite the common denominator of "we hit things", that's quite the spectrum (though the most supernatural any of them seem to be is "really strong").

Incidentally, fighters used to be able to just pay to learn cleric spells, maybe we should just bring that back and call it a day.



There are two questions that have to be addressed: "Where folks/the system thinks the Fighter should be at any given level" and "What kind of problems do you usually face at X level". At level 18, you're probably travelling to different dimensions at least every few weeks, while a level 8 campaign might take place on a flying Artificer city, and I think that every character should be able to follow the ramp-up that campaigns naturally settle into. Not sure we can get anywhere with that kind of analysis as its so campaign dependent, e.g., Planescape has people traveling the planes from level 1, and Eberron still has you visiting in Sharn at level 20.

[Man_Over_Game]

76
Not sure we can get anywhere with that kind of analysis as its so campaign dependent, e.g., Planescape has people traveling the planes from level 1, and Eberron still has you visiting in Sharn at level 20.

That's a good point, but each response doesn't have to just be about an expectation for a level in any campaign, it can be an expectation of a level in perspective to those campaigns.

For instance, how exactly does a Planescape or an Eberron campaign ramp things up between levels 1 through 20? Obviously they have different priorities, but seeing how each of them handle the ramp-up gives us a great guideline on what abilities a character would need to feel satisfied in both.

[Amechra]

Incidentally, fighters used to be able to just pay to learn cleric spells, maybe we should just bring that back and call it a day.

I mean, before 3e Fighters had the broadest access to magic items and the best saves across the board. Maybe having magic powers and having magic items should be mutually exclusive, other than a handful of utility items?

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean, before 3e Fighters had the broadest access to magic items and the best saves across the board. Maybe having magic powers and having magic items should be mutually exclusive, other than a handful of utility items?

An interesting idea, maybe Attunement Slots are something earned through class levels. I could see that.

[Amechra]

An interesting idea, maybe Attunement Slots are something earned through class levels. I could see that.

That's a much cleaner way of handling it than my initial approach to it, which was "the ability to cast higher level spells requires you to spend attunement slots". I seem to recall that the thread I made about that involved a lot of people yelling at me. :smallbiggrin:

It's kind of the flipside of another thing I've been thinking about — why can't Fighters cast spells? As in, why are spells a discrete list of special tricks that some classes get to use, and not just another type of magic item?

[Morty]

Glancing at what I think is the 2e AD&D PHB (think, the cover and first few pages fell off years ago), the examples of fighters run the gambit from Hercules and Beowolf through Little John. Despite the common denominator of "we hit things", that's quite the spectrum (though the most supernatural any of them seem to be is "really strong").

The problem is progression. How does Little John (a strong man from a somewhat fantastical but still ostensibly realistic legend) become Heracles (an actual demigod)? And when?


Incidentally, fighters used to be able to just pay to learn cleric spells, maybe we should just bring that back and call it a day.

"Just make them cast spells" has generally been D&D's response to this problem, but we can do better.

[Amechra]

"Just make them cast spells" has generally been D&D's response to this problem, but we can do better.

To be fair, D&D has also been really weird about how easy it is to learn how to cast spells, thanks to the multiclassing rules. If my Fighter who is a little bit smarter than the average person decides to hit the books during downtime, they can pick up the basics of spellcasting (by picking up a level in Wizard) — it's not like magic requires some kind of unique in-born gift in D&D.

[Psyren]

Metal Bat ain't flashy but he's a normal guy and not a joke character. Same for Bang.

One Punch Man as a whole is a parody. Every character in it is a joke character.

And even if you picked a "serious anime" instead - you'll find that anime fighters have niche appeal with a D&D audience, or at least its designers.


I mean, you sorta could though? It isn't impossible or even really that hard to give martials access to minionmancy through class features. The OG Beastmaster literally just gave you a specially-trained pet with rules for replacing it if it died. The class was bad but not really because of that specifically.

There's a big difference between a dedicated martial pet class and a summoner archetype.



"Just make them cast spells" has generally been D&D's response to this problem, but we can do better.

We can and have. Neither Rune Knight nor Echo Knight "cast spells," but both got magical abilities that imo put them on par with if not ahead of Eldritch Knight.


I mean, before 3e Fighters had the broadest access to magic items and the best saves across the board. Maybe having magic powers and having magic items should be mutually exclusive, other than a handful of utility items?


An interesting idea, maybe Attunement Slots are something earned through class levels. I could see that.

I'd be fine with martials getting more attunement, but in a system where you can't even be guaranteed any magic items at all (never mind ones tailored to your build) that may not do anything.

[Brookshw]

The problem is progression. How does Little John (a strong man from a somewhat fantastical but still ostensibly realistic legend) become Heracles (an actual demigod)? And when? I don't believe progression factors into it so much as lack of consistent vision, though I'll clarify my earlier examples by adding that aside from Hercules and Beowolf, the rest of the multitude of examples are basic regular people largely, certainly no one who would approach either of those examples. D&D draws concepts from a myriad of sources which aren't entirely consistent with one another (other than hitting things). Then people look at those, and other sources, and say "why not that". The only thing that's clear is a fighter is whatever the mechanics for the class are in that edition. I've generally considered the inclusion of Hercules and Beowolf on that list as parenthetical (hypothetical? Figurative?) examples rather than an indication that they're an example of a high level fighter.


"Just make them cast spells" has generally been D&D's response to this problem, but we can do better. Not saying I'm a fan of it, just pointing out how it's been handled before. I'm not on board with the spellcasting superhuman crowd.

[Ralanr]

The problem is progression. How does Little John (a strong man from a somewhat fantastical but still ostensibly realistic legend) become Heracles (an actual demigod)? And when?




That's only a problem if you're stuck in a narrative focus, not a mechanical one.

[Morty]

To be fair, D&D has also been really weird about how easy it is to learn how to cast spells, thanks to the multiclassing rules. If my Fighter who is a little bit smarter than the average person decides to hit the books during downtime, they can pick up the basics of spellcasting (by picking up a level in Wizard) — it's not like magic requires some kind of unique in-born gift in D&D.

D&D has been weird and inconsistent about many things - or even most things, really. But the actual difficulty of learning magic is definitely high on the list.


I don't believe progression factors into it so much as lack of consistent vision, though I'll clarify my earlier examples by adding that aside from Hercules and Beowolf, the rest of the multitude of examples are basic regular people largely, certainly no one who would approach either of those examples. D&D draws concepts from a myriad of sources which aren't entirely consistent with one another (other than hitting things). Then people look at those, and other sources, and say "why not that". The only thing that's clear is a fighter is whatever the mechanics for the class are in that edition. I've generally considered the inclusion of Hercules and Beowolf on that list as parenthetical examples rather than an indication that they're an example of a high level fighter.

This is true, yes. The fighter is a grab-bag of just about everything, so this is what we get.


Not saying I'm a fan of it, just pointing out how it's been handled before. I'm not on board with the spellcasting superhuman crowd.

I'm generally in favor of giving martial character superhuman or even supernatural abilities... eventually. But they definitely shouldn't be spells. And the big questions is when they should get those. Some attempted or proposed solutions to the problem, like ToB, PoW and some 5E subclasses, give non-casters magic powers from the start or very early, which just isn't what people want.


That's only a problem if you're stuck in a narrative focus, not a mechanical one.

I... honestly don't know what this means. What even is a narrative focus?

[Ralanr]

I... honestly don't know what this means. What even is a narrative focus?

How does little john become hercules? He doesn't because they are different characters in different narratives and aren't the best to compare. And that's how I figure people are having this issue. They get too caught up in how it should work as if it's a story to be played out, rather than just mechanics.

This is why (IMO) people who want a 'normal guy' in D&D and refuse to accept 'anime' like changes, because anime powers don't fit their narrative viewpoint where in some anime, the normal guy is still pretty balls to the walls nuts.

Usopp from One Piece for example. Or Nami from it. Anyone who's heard of either can see my point (though it might be a bad one).

[Lord Raziere]

How does little john become hercules? He doesn't because they are different characters in different narratives and aren't the best to compare. And that's how I figure people are having this issue. They get too caught up in how it should work as if it's a story to be played out, rather than just mechanics.

This is why (IMO) people who want a 'normal guy' in D&D and refuse to accept 'anime' like changes, because anime powers don't fit their narrative viewpoint where in some anime, the normal guy is still pretty balls to the walls nuts.

Usopp from One Piece for example. Or Nami from it. Anyone who's heard of either can see my point (though it might be a bad one).

I mean from my "anime" perspective, its that the fighter doesn't even live up to badass normals of those anime.

A wizard has specific mechanics to live up to being harry potter or gandalf. they don't just have a "use magic" roll where you do a magic and depending on whether the roll goes well whether you cast it at all then another roll to see how much of a magic you do. because if wizards were built like fighters, you'd have a cast magic roll then a magic effectiveness roll with the possibility of casting a spell but then that spell being really sucky and only cover like 5 feet instead of the usual 30 feet, but wait you say, there are various spells to use! made like weapons, but the spells being all like weapons are not much different from each other, but you could get a feat to get like, +2 to casting one of those spells or something, called spell specialization. and you can only equip one spell at a time, and those spells cost money, but wait you can level up to get extra castings of the one spell you get! you can cast the one spell you can equip up to four times! what does this model about any wizard or magic user from fiction? None that I can think of or like, but hey its good enough right? if you squint right is kind of resembles some random character you pull can pull up from fiction by sheer inevitable probability, so of course it works, it can't possibly not work, anyone who says this wizard doesn't work clearly just doesn't like it.

[Ralanr]

I mean from my "anime" perspective, its that the fighter doesn't even live up to badass normals of those anime.

A wizard has specific mechanics to live up to being harry potter or gandalf. they don't just have a "use magic" roll where you do a magic and depending on whether the roll goes well whether you cast it at all then another roll to see how much of a magic you do. because if wizards were built like fighters, you'd have a cast magic roll then a magic effectiveness roll with the possibility of casting a spell but then that spell being really sucky and only cover like 5 feet instead of the usual 30 feet, but wait you say, there are various spells to use! made like weapons, but the spells being all like weapons are not much different from each other, but you could get a feat to get like, +2 to casting one of those spells or something, called spell specialization. and you can only equip one spell at a time, and those spells cost money, but wait you can level up to get extra castings of the one spell you get! you can cast the one spell you can equip up to four times! what does this model about any wizard or magic user from fiction? None that I can think of or like, but hey its good enough right? if you squint right is kind of resembles some random character you pull can pull up from fiction by sheer inevitable probability, so of course it works, it can't possibly not work, anyone who says this wizard doesn't work clearly just doesn't like it.

It’s possible we have very different anime perspectives. One Piece is a great example of the fighter stacking up against the wizard.

Though some things do muck it up.

[Lord Raziere]

It’s possible we have very different anime perspectives. One Piece is a great example of the fighter stacking up against the wizard.

Though some things do muck it up.

I mean the problem with using One Piece is that everyone who is not a Devil fruit user is technically a badass normal/martial. (and you can argue that even many Devil Fruit users are STILL martials just with magic to enhance them)

Usopp and Nami are like, gadget martials. the reason they work is because of their tools.

people who master like those martial techniques or the Haki stuff, they are more of a Inner Strength Martial- their power comes more from themselves than what they wield. the problem is whether you define ki/haki/chi/so on as "normal" or not, because their entire purpose of such techniques is to make sure they can fight things like Devil Fruit users without changing them or how they fight. I wouldn't consider that making them particularly abnormal.

Devil Fruit users are ones I'd really consider magic/martial hybrids.

[Sindeloke]

Not magic or illusions, just ways that Barbarians can use a Barbarian-shaped solution to get themselves into a Barbarian-shaped problem.

This feels like the very heart of it. It is absolutely, 100% true that a barbarian does not want to wave his hands and shoot fire at a beholder that he cannot reach, or cut a very precise hole in the universe that he can step through and fall on top of the beholder from, or probably even pull out a bow and carefully shoot the beholder from behind cover, because none of those are Things Barbarians Do. What he wants to do is beat it very hard over the eyeball with a very large melee weapon. But that requires a way to make that happen as easily as the mage can shoot fire or the ranger can nock an arrow.

So what he needs are mechanics to unerringly leap onto it and stay there, or hook it with a rope and drag it out of the sky and keep it pinned in front of him while he whacks it, or limit or destroy its environment in such a way to drive it to the ground. A permissive DM might allow some of that with appropriate skill checks, but many won't, because they're not able to come up with mechanics on the fly (what should it cost the barbarian? an attack? an action? how hard should it be? what can the beholder do to defend?), or because they're not sure if it's balanced (if he can leap 80 vertical feet per turn at will, haven't I just broken movement speed?), or just because they have an issue with the logic (the beholder can lift several times their combined weight without falling, dragging it out of the sky violates physics!). There's no guidance for either the player or DM to fall back on - in the baseline game it is simply not possible to grapple at range by any means, drag something you're grappling without also moving yourself, or leap higher than your total movement speed, and even holding on to a creature is an optional rule in the DMG that has explicit size category requirements. But without that guidance, the barbarian is likely to be forced to fall back on a wizard solution - get his magic buddy to cast fly - and surely that feels so much less martial in play than pulling the thing to you with sheer muscle.

[strangebloke]

How does little john become hercules? He doesn't because they are different characters in different narratives and aren't the best to compare. And that's how I figure people are having this issue. They get too caught up in how it should work as if it's a story to be played out, rather than just mechanics.

This is why (IMO) people who want a 'normal guy' in D&D and refuse to accept 'anime' like changes, because anime powers don't fit their narrative viewpoint where in some anime, the normal guy is still pretty balls to the walls nuts.

Usopp from One Piece for example. Or Nami from it. Anyone who's heard of either can see my point (though it might be a bad one).

At least speaking for people in this thread, I think we're all actually okay with spell-like anime maneuvers. There are people in the larger community who aren't (the famed 2d8hp, bless him) and some people are more restrictive even than that. But both I and Dr. Samurai though have said we're fine with a 'normal guy' that is pretty bugnuts compared to an actual normal guy. Samurai mentioned Captain America (who can throw cars around and wrestle helicopters and run a hundred miles an hour before he got mjolnir) and I mentioned Aragorn's many superhuman feats.

The truth is we're already operating in a paradigm where martials have good damage output and successfully simulate the 'normal(ish) guy who hangs with demigods' inside the combat pillar. The problem is that

melee combat is kind of stale
this archetype is only simulated in the combat pillar.


Its incorrect to say that there are no 'normal guy' abilities that could be relevant at this level outside of combat. Things like ignoring giant falls, running super fast, reading minds via extraordinary insight, bringing back an ally from the dead without components by ordering them to come back, giving out thp, inspiring allies with immunity to fear, giving out advantage, punching their way out of a force cage... these are all things that I think would be reasonable for a high level 'normal guy' to do. Of course such a person isn't really 'normal' but eh. Normal is relative.

And I'm aware that this isn't everything a high level caster could do but I'm not really concerned with that. I have a pretty dim view of the actual importance of party bus spells.

:smallsigh:

We're circling the drain here, all these points have been brought up many times. I like the look of the maneuvers, though I feel it only really addresses the "staleness" issue. I like my own skill trick solution better but then I'm biased.

[Ralanr]

We're circling the drain here, all these points have been brought up many times. I like the look of the maneuvers, though I feel it only really addresses the "staleness" issue. I like my own skill trick solution better but then I'm biased.

Well it's been a 30 pages. So it's no surprise.

[Lord Raziere]

Well, Captain America is mostly an Inner strength martial. sure the inner strength is from a super-science serum that no one can replicate without major flaws but lets ignore that bit of superhero weirdness to focus on the fact that he is a badass normal. No really lets do that, I'm not being sarcastic. At the same time he is a bit of a "Legendary Weapon" martial where half of what makes him cool is that he has a weapon thats kind of unique to him which he always has and has narrative protections that DnD does not allow. (I make the distinction between a gadget martial and a legendary weapon one on the reasoning that a gadget martial makes a lot of tools for many situations while the legendary weapon martial has one supercool weapon and uses it for everything, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a concept that overlaps these) like the reason Captain America's shield is so cool is because its like indestructible and made of a special metal and can do things like be thrown around like a frisbee and return to his hand without any jedi magic. and most people would say you can't really have Captain America without his shield.

so there is like more than one martial archetype bound up in Captain America. (in the general trope/narrative sense not mechanical sense) Neither of archetypes are really represented in DnD. Sure you legendary weapons in DnD and sure you can spend money to have a bunch of items but it doesn't really feel like your being that kind of archetype. Tavi was mentioned at some point, he is another good example of a martial that DnD doesn't really support: the leader/strategical genius martial. Sure he is a fighter....technically....but all the stuff I really want to play Tavi for would just be DM fiat. the personal fighting aspect is secondary to what he is actually about: his mind, his strategical genius and ability to command armies that makes up for not being a Fury. because DnD's mechanics are very materialist and a lot of stuff that Tavi does can't be represented materialistically. the armies he commands would be separate characters and npcs, his battle plans would have no mechanical basis and just be notes the DM has for this or that battle and his ability to come up with them entirely dependent on the players own mind, and not every player can do that, and not every DM can handle it.

[strangebloke]

snip

All good points.

I would say that you can sorta get there with Captain America as a high level kensei with athletics expertise from skill focus but that would (once again) really only capture the combat side of him, and even then, there'd be no way to implement something as iconic and the "throw a weapon and richochet off many foes" thing without taking like eleven levels of hunter. (all of the hunter subclass features should have been generic options available to martials - change my mind.)

And yeah Tavi is what. A Mastermind? Lol.

[Lord Raziere]

All good points.

I would say that you can sorta get there with Captain America as a high level kensei with athletics expertise from skill focus but that would (once again) really only capture the combat side of him, and even then, there'd be no way to implement something as iconic and the "throw a weapon and richochet off many foes" thing without taking like eleven levels of hunter. (all of the hunter subclass features should have been generic options available to martials - change my mind.)

And yeah Tavi is what. A Mastermind? Lol.

Exactly. Thats why you get so many people latching onto wuxia/anime stuff as a solution, because DnD is materialist in how it models things and the chi stuff is a solid material way that DnD can model similar to how it does divine and arcane energy, instead of the other ways that martials can be powerful that other rpgs have done which is giving them political power, social power, ways to have "permanent/iconic" equipment things like that (note this doesn't just apply to like kings and such, even rebels and criminals need organization, social stuff and so on to work) that require more abstract models.

if someone wants to not get an anime solution, they'd have to revise how DnD does things outside its adventuring/combat focus so that the mechanics can be engaged with better. which might honestly might be harder than just revising martials on their own, and may not be worth it if the fanbase isn't interested in political/social games.

Edit: Mastermind has an anti-mindreading/truthtelling ability that would be cool to have if you got at it at a reasonable level, instead of y'know getting it at level 17. the rest I'm not sure how helpful the rest of its features are, but they don't sound that great, given that I don't know what the help action even does.

[Amechra]

I'd be fine with martials getting more attunement, but in a system where you can't even be guaranteed any magic items at all (never mind ones tailored to your build) that may not do anything.

Not if Fighters get "you are more likely to run into magic items" as a class feature!

Honestly, I'm only half-joking. If Wizards get to add new spells to their spell book as they level regardless of their access to new scholarship, why not let the person playing a Fighter just declare that their sword was magic this whole time? Or let them declare that one of the non-magical weapons that the party stumbled across actually is magical, but that no-one else has enough INSERT-JUSTIFICATION-HERE to get it to work.

[strangebloke]

Not if Fighters get "you are more likely to run into magic items" as a class feature!

Honestly, I'm only half-joking. If Wizards get to add new spells to their spell book as they level regardless of their access to new scholarship, why not let the person playing a Fighter just declare that their sword was magic this whole time? Or let them declare that one of the non-magical weapons that the party stumbled across actually is magical, but that no-one else has enough INSERT-JUSTIFICATION-HERE to get it to work.

It really wouldn't be that hard to justify. Say that the shade of a great and ancient warrior was drawn out of the blade by your sword work, and the shade recognizes your strength and skill and lends you a portion of the power it had on life, inhabiting your weapon or shield or armor and enhancing it.

Might not be appropriate for everyone's high level fighter, but that's part of why I am so fixated on systematizing this as a robust list of options.

(Though this in particular isn't the best example as I really don't think making fighters better at stabbing things is important)

[Psyren]

bringing back an ally from the dead without components by ordering them to come back

I'm actually fine with most of your other examples but this one... *vomits*


Not if Fighters get "you are more likely to run into magic items" as a class feature!

Honestly, I'm only half-joking. If Wizards get to add new spells to their spell book as they level regardless of their access to new scholarship, why not let the person playing a Fighter just declare that their sword was magic this whole time? Or let them declare that one of the non-magical weapons that the party stumbled across actually is magical, but that no-one else has enough INSERT-JUSTIFICATION-HERE to get it to work.

I don't mind that, 3.5 Kensai essentially does this and they were always one of the PrCs I felt could have just been folded into the base class, similar to Shadowdancer or Asssassin for Rogues. Along with PF's Master Craftsman for item creation and Item Mastery for utility.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm actually fine with most of your other examples but this one... *vomits*


I'd say that falls under a particular archetype I'd call "Demigod Martial" which is different from a cleric or whatever. its basically a martial that is so mythical they can do reality-bending things with otherwise normal actions much like Exalted, Scion, a Godbound or some other demigod or whatever. But because DnD is incredibly materialist in how views these things, the only way your going to get a demigod martial in this system is if its a divine class.

[strangebloke]

Exactly. Thats why you get so many people latching onto wuxia/anime stuff as a solution, because DnD is materialist in how it models things and the chi stuff is a solid material way that DnD can model similar to how it does divine and arcane energy, instead of the other ways that martials can be powerful that other rpgs have done which is giving them political power, social power, ways to have "permanent/iconic" equipment things like that (note this doesn't just apply to like kings and such, even rebels and criminals need organization, social stuff and so on to work) that require more abstract models.

if someone wants to not get an anime solution, they'd have to revise how DnD does things outside its adventuring/combat focus so that the mechanics can be engaged with better. which might honestly might be harder than just revising martials on their own, and may not be worth it if the fanbase isn't interested in political/social games.

Edit: Mastermind has an anti-mindreading/truthtelling ability that would be cool to have if you got at it at a reasonable level, instead of y'know getting it at level 17. the rest I'm not sure how helpful the rest of its features are, but they don't sound that great, given that I don't know what the help action even does.
Help action gives advantage on one attack. It scales poorly. Masterminds for this reason are kind of eh.

But I don't really think the issue is that fighters need to be Kings and have armies and such. It's more simply that everything that can be done can be done with spells and so you have to create new things for the martial's to do. Like "oh he can lead an army" is there because nobody leads armies right now.

If magical healing and hit dice didn't exist you could have the medicine skill handle that.

I'm actually fine with most of your other examples but this one... *vomits*.

Would it be better if they could achieve a revivify effect with Intense medical treatment?

Genuinely curious, I'm trying to gauge what peoples feelings are on such things

[Psyren]

Would it be better if they could achieve a revivify effect with Intense medical treatment?

Genuinely curious, I'm trying to gauge what peoples feelings are on such things

Once they're dead you should need magic. I could see a martial ability that makes them halt or automatically succeed on their death saves or something.

[Ignimortis]

But what do people mean by "Thor" or, as has been stated more often, "space god"? Because the point I am making is that those terms get bandied about willy nilly in the thread with little definition. We just assume that someone like Thor can be made in the game and/or should be held as some sort of standard. Without explanation, I take it that we all have a concept of "ridiculously powerful person that can fly and is nearly invulnerable and can dish out loads of damage".

But when someone points to a badass martial, suddenly things become less obvious and people start explaining narrative systems and why a comparison to D&D is not helpful.

Long story short, Thor is notable not because he is nearly invulnerable and can hit hard. That would make Hulk just as notable, but he is brought up much less. Thor actually has a powerset that isn't expressed best as "high numbers" — his flight and his thunderbolts. In a game where high numbers are common, special things that cannot be replicated by having a high number are extra important.



But in the end, this is always going to be a matter of perspective. John McClane taking down a fighter jet is akin to a fighter taking out a dragon, but it's considered small potatoes because he didn't do it by wiggling his fingers. Captain America has max Strength and some magic artifacts (his Shield and Mjolnir). He even has 1E style followers. He takes the fight to Thanos and is the last man standing. Doesn't matter. He's not ripping open the fabric of space-time.

Considering Captain America actually has Mjolnir when fighting Thanos, he's actually not anywhere normal anymore. He's basically a lower-charge Thor at that point.



Would it be better if they could achieve a revivify effect with Intense medical treatment?

Genuinely curious, I'm trying to gauge what peoples feelings are on such things

Yes. Ordering someone to come back from the dead and them doing so is a pretty mythic feat, I'd put it somewhere north of level 13. Making someone recently dead come back to life with impossibly good surgery? Sure thing. Restart the heart, restart the brain before any decay really sets in, I could see that happening as soon as we leave the boundaries of "kinda mundane", which I'd put at level 6-7.

Side note: i don't think resurrection spells should work on anyone dead for more than a few days at best, too.

[Dr.Samurai]

Long story short, Thor is notable not because he is nearly invulnerable and can hit hard. That would make Hulk just as notable, but he is brought up much less. Thor actually has a powerset that isn't expressed best as "high numbers" — his flight and his thunderbolts. In a game where high numbers are common, special things that cannot be replicated by having a high number are extra important.
It has to be more than that though because the “space god” is brought up as something the martial simply can’t keep up with. Flight and thunderbolts isn’t going to do that.

Considering Captain America actually has Mjolnir when fighting Thanos, he's actually not anywhere normal anymore. He's basically a lower-charge Thor at that point.
He’s a human fighter with an artifact, just like any other warrior in D&D wielding a very powerful weapon. Thor’s powers are internal, as we learned in Ragnarok. Cap with Mjolnir is still a badass normal with a very powerful weapon.

It does seem to me that magic items appear to be a sticking point for some people. I’m not sure where the line is here. Magic gear is a staple of fantasy and has always been in the game to my knowledge. As far as I’m concerned D&D heroes are akin to Perseus, having the magic items needed to defeat the monsters.

[Brookshw]

Once they're dead you should need magic. I could see a martial ability that makes them halt or automatically succeed on their death saves or something.

Admittedly, I'd like to see a pulp/gothic horror Mad Scientist option for Alchemists, and would be okay if they had ability to bring people back from the dead via a combination of lightning and medicine checks. Also, completely acknowledge that such an option may be more appropriate for specific campaigns rather than a default option.

[Dienekes]

Once they're dead you should need magic. I could see a martial ability that makes them halt or automatically succeed on their death saves or something.

I mean, you can revive some of the recent dead in real life, without the use of magic. Resuscitation has been kicking around the world in various forms since the medieval period. Hell, if we want to be real technical the 1 minute time limit is actually tighter than real world examples of successful revivals.

Personally I have no problem with Revivify effects being nonmagical, because I always have a problem with completely mundane things being only allowed with magic.

There would be some wonkiness, admittedly. If a particularly bloody GM describes a death as having their head cut off, to then be revivified. But I think the benefits outweigh the costs.

[Psyren]

Admittedly, I'd like to see a pulp/gothic horror Mad Scientist option for Alchemists, and would be okay if they had ability to bring people back from the dead via a combination of lightning and medicine checks. Also, completely acknowledge that such an option may be more appropriate for specific campaigns rather than a default option.

Artificers explicitly use magic (very first sentence), and Alchemists are a subclass of that, so I'm totally fine with them raising the dead too.


I mean, you can revive some of the recent dead in real life, without the use of magic. Resuscitation has been kicking around the world in various forms since the medieval period. Hell, if we want to be real technical the 1 minute time limit is actually tighter than real world examples of successful revivals.

Granted, but you don't do it by yelling at them. So I would expect some hefty restrictions like needing to be within a few rounds of death, needing to be adjacent etc. And you'd probably bring them back to stable or 1 hit point without magic either.

[Dienekes]

Granted, but you don't do it by yelling at them. So I would expect some hefty restrictions like needing to be within a few rounds of death, needing to be adjacent etc. And you'd probably bring them back to stable or 1 hit point without magic either.

Agreed. But we are specifying Revivify, not magic resurrection in general. Or at least, that's what I thought the conversation was talking about. Which requires Touch range, within a minute of the ally dropping, and they come back at 1 hit point.

Personally, I'd add something like: Takes up a use of the Healer's Kit, requires a successful Medicine check. Or something as well.

[Brookshw]

Artificers explicitly use magic (very first sentence), and Alchemists are a subclass of that, so I'm totally fine with them raising the dead too.
I'm specifically referring to a non-magic "it's alive" style of raise dead. I don't want to get away from the topic at hand, suffice to say the Mad Scientist option I'd like to see (which, again, is not suitable for most campaigns, and certainly not as a default option) doesn't exist and would need to strip out a lot of the Artificer's current "stuff". /tangent

[Psyren]

Agreed. But we are specifying Revivify, not magic resurrection in general. Or at least, that's what I thought the conversation was talking about. Which requires Touch range, within a minute of the ally dropping, and they come back at 1 hit point.

Personally, I'd add something like: Takes up a use of the Healer's Kit, requires a successful Medicine check. Or something as well.

Fair enough. Maybe we can have "tool tricks" in addition to the "skill tricks" proposed earlier?


I'm specifically referring to a non-magic "it's alive" style of raise dead. I don't want to get away from the topic at hand, suffice to say the Mad Scientist option I'd like to see (which, again, is not suitable for most campaigns, and certainly not as a default option) doesn't exist and would need to strip out a lot of the Artificer's current "stuff". /tangent

The nonmagical option of that would probably need an entire laboratory and thus be extremely restricted in ways normal resurrection wouldn't be.

[Brookshw]

The nonmagical option of that would probably need an entire laboratory and thus be extremely restricted in ways normal resurrection wouldn't be.

I refuse to acknowledge a mad scientist who doesn't surround themselves with an unnecessary number of Tesla coils, alembics, hoists, surgical tables, etc. :smallbiggrin:

[Dr.Samurai]

Now that I'm at a computer I wanted to address the idea of narrative constraints, and I think someone mentioned that D&D is not a story or something along those lines.

I disagree with that idea. I think D&D is a game but I also believe it's a collaborative effort at telling or describing a story. I think the game brings together a mechanical system with a fantasy narrative. I think that's the point.

And I think we're sort of missing the point of a lot of these scenes we're discussing. The questions posed in this thread seem to me to be the point. The questions asked about badass normals in high level encounters sort of imply a situation where a high level caster will have whatever is needed to handle the situation.

And that, to me, doesn't seem like how our stories go.

When you say "how will a fighter deal with this, or handle that, or survive this?" you are asking "How will Sam, a hobbit gardener, triumph over a giant primordial monster?" or "How will Cap defeat Thanos and his entire military force? What can he do to stop them?"

It is telling that after Thanos kicks Thor in the face and knocks him out, it isn't Iron Man there as the last man standing, because Iron Man is nearly invulnerable, can zip around in the air, and shoot pinpoint lasers and missiles in a radial pattern to clear out giant chunks of enemies at a time. It's not Dr. Strange. It's not Wanda or Vision or Captain Marvel. All of them super powerful.

It's Captain America.

It's not Gandalf zipping up the side of Mount Doom on Shadowfax. It's two hobbits that pointedly *do not* have a magic or supernatural spell or ability to overcome the encounter.

The whole point is to give the players, the heroes of the story, encounters that they have to tackle and enemies that they have to struggle against.

These conversations seem to imply that if the monster can fly, you must be able to fly. If it can teleport, you must be able to teleport or shut down teleportation. If it shoots fire, you should be fire immune. Etc etc. It's like reducing D&D back to the mechanistic wargame from which it evolved. And that evolution occurred precisely to make characters out of units and develop a narrative around the gameplay that people are now saying is inappropriate.

As Strangebloke mentioned earlier, we're circling the drain here and it's all been said before, but since I'm at a proper keyboard I just wanted to share my thoughts on why I think high level badass normals should absolutely remain in the game. I think they are an integral part of the stories that inspired D&D.

[Psyren]

^ I agree with all that though I'll point out that the Hobbits' challenge was explicitly not a combat encounter, they succeeded by being stealthy and having higher will saves (or perhaps more accurately, lower will penalties) than the other races would have.

But Captain America vs. Thanos absolutely highlights what a martial character would want a high-level fight to be. Calling him a badass normal is a bit of a misnomer, because he's been both mutated and is wielding the equivalents of an artifact weapon and shield, but he's certainly not any kind of spellcaster equivalent in that moment, and that is what his "player" would likely find satisfying.

[PhoenixPhyre]

^ I agree with all that though I'll point out that the Hobbits' challenge was explicitly not a combat encounter, they succeeded by being stealthy and having higher will saves (or perhaps more accurately, lower will penalties) than the other races would have.

But Captain America vs. Thanos absolutely highlights what a martial character would want a high-level fight to be. Calling him a badass normal is a bit of a misnomer, because he's been both mutated and is wielding the equivalents of an artifact weapon and shield, but he's certainly not any kind of spellcaster equivalent in that moment, and that is what his "player" would likely find satisfying.

I still struggle with the hard "if not spellcaster, then 'normal'" dichotomy that seems to be prevalent in these discussions. Is there no room for someone who has power beyond what "normal" people can get...while still not casting spells? Is there room for more types than just spells under the umbrella of fantastic[1] abilities? I don't believe that Captain America or Batman or (heck) even most action heroes (ie John Wick) are normal by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. I see them all as superheroes with super-normal power, from whatever source it may stem. Mutations, super-normal intelligence (which also happens to coincide with super-normal healing and super-normal durability and...), plot armor, whatever. None of them are limited by the real laws of physics; they're limited instead by the movie (or comic book, or ...) physics of their particular sub-sub-sub-...-genre.

[1] I specifically don't use the word 'magical' here, because that's even more tied into a (false, IMO) 'magical === spells' concept.

[Psyren]

I still struggle with the hard "if not spellcaster, then 'normal'" dichotomy that seems to be prevalent in these discussions. Is there no room for someone who has power beyond what "normal" people can get...while still not casting spells? Is there room for more types than just spells under the umbrella of fantastic[1] abilities? I don't believe that Captain America or Batman or (heck) even most action heroes (ie John Wick) are normal by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. I see them all as superheroes with super-normal power, from whatever source it may stem. Mutations, super-normal intelligence (which also happens to coincide with super-normal healing and super-normal durability and...), plot armor, whatever. None of them are limited by the real laws of physics; they're limited instead by the movie (or comic book, or ...) physics of their particular sub-sub-sub-...-genre.

[1] I specifically don't use the word 'magical' here, because that's even more tied into a (false, IMO) 'magical === spells' concept.

I think we're mostly saying the same thing. I don't consider Captain America to be normal or a spellcaster (because alchemical serum), same with Batman (array of gadgets).

John Wick I do consider normal (or perhaps "peak normal?), but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive by D&D standards.

[Ralanr]

I think we're mostly saying the same thing. I don't consider Captain America to be normal or a spellcaster (because alchemical serum), same with Batman (array of gadgets).

John Wick I do consider normal (or perhaps "peak normal?), but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive by D&D standards.

I think it would matter in the setting. Captain America is pretty normal compared to most of the other avengers (outside of Hawkeye and Widow, who have different skillsets).

[strangebloke]

I think we're mostly saying the same thing. I don't consider Captain America to be normal or a spellcaster (because alchemical serum), same with Batman (array of gadgets).

John Wick I do consider normal (or perhaps "peak normal?), but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive by D&D standards.

Then let me just go on the record that I have no interest in simulating this kind of normal. I'm trying to talk about a 'normal' guy who is certainly extraordinary, just not by the standards of his peers.
\

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think we're mostly saying the same thing. I don't consider Captain America to be normal or a spellcaster (because alchemical serum), same with Batman (array of gadgets).

John Wick I do consider normal (or perhaps "peak normal?), but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive by D&D standards.


I think it would matter in the setting. Captain America is pretty normal compared to most of the other avengers (outside of Hawkeye and Widow, who have different skillsets).

I'm looking at each thing in its own setting--John Wick isn't normal in his own setting. Captain America isn't as flashy as (say) the Flash, but he's decidedly abnormal in his own setting. And D&D martials aren't normal in their own setting. Heck, no PC is, even at level 1. The Archmage NPC? Isn't a level 18 wizard (he's missing a crap ton of features). And he certainly didn't get there in less than an in-universe year, which is slow for many D&D PCs.


Then let me just go on the record that I have no interest in simulating this kind of normal. I'm trying to talk about a 'normal' guy who is certainly extraordinary, just not by the standards of his peers.

Since we're bringing up loads of random examples, consider someone like Kirei Kotomine, who was just born with a 'perfect body' and is consequently strong and fast enough to catch bullets

I'd say that that person (Kirei Kotomine) is absolutely abnormal, at least by Earth standards. Specifically, they're fantastic. And my belief is that every PC must be fantastic, even by their own setting's standards. Not because they're PCs--in fact the reverse. They're PCs because they're special. If they weren't special, we'd follow the adventures of someone who was.

-----

Once we give up the idea that any PC is normal (by any setting's standards), we can decide what the bounds of abnormality we want to support are. In both directions. And that's fundamentally arbitrary--there's no reason that "the most tricked out wizards" is the appropriate power level any more than "only things that you could see a real person doing" is definitionally the appropriate power level.

Personally, I dislike trying to analogize to fictional characters outside of D&D. Because only within a single setting is power level or even adventures/foes/threats faced even a meaningful parameter. The decision on what the appropriate power level needs to be made with reference to D&D and D&D alone, not trying to "emulate other characters" IMO.

[Pex]

Personally, I dislike trying to analogize to fictional characters outside of D&D. Because only within a single setting is power level or even adventures/foes/threats faced even a meaningful parameter. The decision on what the appropriate power level needs to be made with reference to D&D and D&D alone, not trying to "emulate other characters" IMO.

The analogy fails when someone tries to take it literally. The analogy is not supposed to be taken literally. To be Thor isn't literally to be able to fly, shoot lightning, and wield an artifact. It's to be a warrior character who can get into the face of BBEGs and smack it around until dead. Not just any BBEG, but the elites. The ones 5E gives Legendary actions and resistances. Maybe this hypothetical warrior has supernatural powers of some kind in comparison to someone who wants to play Captain America, another warrior character who can get into the face of BBEGs and smack it around until dead. Captain America doesn't have flashy powers like Thor, so there's a distinction between the two warrior types. However, the hypothetical warrior with supernatural powers to be like Thor doesn't mean those supernatural powers must be flight, lightning, and wield a personal artifact. D&D doesn't fail just because a PC couldn't be literal Thor by the given rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The analogy fails when someone tries to take it literally. The analogy is not supposed to be taken literally. To be Thor isn't literally to be able to fly, shoot lightning, and wield an artifact. It's to be a warrior character who can get into the face of BBEGs and smack it around until dead. Not just any BBEG, but the elites. The ones 5E gives Legendary actions and resistances. Maybe this hypothetical warrior has supernatural powers of some kind in comparison to someone who wants to play Captain America, another warrior character who can get into the face of BBEGs and smack it around until dead. Captain America doesn't have flashy powers like Thor, so there's a distinction between the two warrior types. However, the hypothetical warrior with supernatural powers to be like Thor doesn't mean those supernatural powers must be flight, lightning, and wield a personal artifact. D&D doesn't fail just because a PC couldn't be literal Thor by the given rules.

If that's all that means...why use an analogy that doesn't hold in any detail? Why not just say "I want to be a warrior character who can get into the face of BBEGs and smack it around until dead, with flashy powers?" Or "I want to be a warrior character who can get into the face of BBEGs and smack it around until dead, but without flashy powers?" That conveys the intent in a way that doesn't import a range of subjective issues like "ok, which version of Thor? What parts of Thor matter? Etc".

I prefer if people are clear about what they mean, instead of resorting to obscuring "analogies" that aren't really useful.

[Dr.Samurai]

^ I agree with all that though I'll point out that the Hobbits' challenge was explicitly not a combat encounter, they succeeded by being stealthy and having higher will saves (or perhaps more accurately, lower will penalties) than the other races would have.

But Captain America vs. Thanos absolutely highlights what a martial character would want a high-level fight to be. Calling him a badass normal is a bit of a misnomer, because he's been both mutated and is wielding the equivalents of an artifact weapon and shield, but he's certainly not any kind of spellcaster equivalent in that moment, and that is what his "player" would likely find satisfying.
I am writing this down in the books... Psyren and I agreeing on something :smallbiggrin:

I still struggle with the hard "if not spellcaster, then 'normal'" dichotomy that seems to be prevalent in these discussions. Is there no room for someone who has power beyond what "normal" people can get...while still not casting spells?
I at least am not arguing this. I really did not like the 4th edition iteration of the barbarian because I didn't want to play a guy that manifested an aura of fire or got so angry that lightning shot out from him, etc. But I don't mind that it's in the game. Sometimes a concept calls for something like this, and of course other people like this kind of thing.

But I always want the option to play the guy that's just swinging the weapon without some sort of inner supernatural magic schtick.

Once we give up the idea that any PC is normal (by any setting's standards), we can decide what the bounds of abnormality we want to support are.
Sure, but I think people are being strangely literal in this thread. We agree that D&D PCs are not "normal". A person with 20 Strength and 16 Con/Dex and 120 HP is not "normal". At the end of RotK, Aragorn completely blocks an overhand sword swing by a gigantic armored troll with his own sword. That's not "normal", and yet Strangebloke and I point to the concept of Aragorn as an example.

Personally, I dislike trying to analogize to fictional characters outside of D&D. Because only within a single setting is power level or even adventures/foes/threats faced even a meaningful parameter. The decision on what the appropriate power level needs to be made with reference to D&D and D&D alone, not trying to "emulate other characters" IMO.
Sure but we have to be careful here too because we don't think this way for casters. I can play a wizard and, just by chance, emulate any number of "mage" characters in fiction.

Part of the reason this thread exists is precisely because that's not as possible for martials.

I prefer if people are clear about what they mean, instead of resorting to obscuring "analogies" that aren't really useful.
Analogies are useful because no matter how clear you are there are people making claims to the contrary, and examples are useful to push back on those claims.

[Lord Raziere]

I still struggle with the hard "if not spellcaster, then 'normal'" dichotomy that seems to be prevalent in these discussions. Is there no room for someone who has power beyond what "normal" people can get...while still not casting spells? Is there room for more types than just spells under the umbrella of fantastic[1] abilities? I don't believe that Captain America or Batman or (heck) even most action heroes (ie John Wick) are normal by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. I see them all as superheroes with super-normal power, from whatever source it may stem. Mutations, super-normal intelligence (which also happens to coincide with super-normal healing and super-normal durability and...), plot armor, whatever. None of them are limited by the real laws of physics; they're limited instead by the movie (or comic book, or ...) physics of their particular sub-sub-sub-...-genre.

[1] I specifically don't use the word 'magical' here, because that's even more tied into a (false, IMO) 'magical === spells' concept.

Its a tvtropes term (warning a lot of tvtropes ahead:
Badass Normal (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal)

to quote the article:

In a World… with supernatural dealings or superpowers, this character is the one who is able to keep being useful through intellect, martial arts abilities, general ruthlessness, or just being Crazy-Prepared.

So. Technically by this definition, martial arts is totally fine to be a badass normal thing.

now to clarify, there is also the Non-Powered Costumed Hero (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NonPoweredCostumedHero) trope used to refer to any superhero that doesn't have powers, BUT they are only a badass normal if they are in a world of supernatural power. Badass Normal is a thing of comparison not something that exists on its own.

Now if a person does something impossible through pure training that is Charles Atlas Superpower (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower). So technically wuxia/anime abilities is this kind of.

Now here is the problem with term, there is no "relatively" with it:

It's important to note if they have strange or superhuman abilities, they are not normal. There is no "relatively" when it comes to Badass Normal. It doesn't matter if you can "barely" lift a tank, your ki blasts can "only" level cities, your Bio-Augmentation is standard issue, or your ability to alter the fabric of reality isn't as developed as others; you're a badass with superpowers. Not everyone can be the Batman of the setting. A character who chooses not to use their powers in combat (or has powers with no combat application) probably Fights Like a Normal.

Meaning technically Captain America ISN'T a Badass Normal as he has super-soldier serum that could make him magically more powerful without the Charles Atlas thing depending on what the writer wants that story. Hawkeye is a better example, as he is just a guy with a trick bow, or the Punisher, people like that.

Captain America is probably more accurately Empowered Badass Normal (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EmpoweredBadassNormal) because of his serum. while a lot of obscure minor DC characters like Black Canary, Red Tornado or the Atom used to be non-powered mystery-men but we're reworked when put into the DC universe to have powers, since they're obscure though, no one really cared if they were altered. though Black Canary is a special case as her power can be written as too powerful for her to use normally because she'd wreck everything around her, so she can fight normally most of the time then use her Cry as a trump card.

I hope this explanation helps. Badass Normal is the term being used now and has been for some time as long as I can remember, so your probably stuck with it, but I thought it might help somehow figure out the various delineations of this. tvtropes already considers Champion/Battlemaster to be Badass Normals so I guess they already count.

Batman is badass normal no matter what you say, that how tvtropes defines the term. (now John Wick is technically just Badass, as he doesn't exist in a world of superpowers, Badass Normal would just be redundant) you may not like "normal" being used in this way, but that is the accepted term. Sorry. you want it changed go bother the people who maintain the wiki.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure but we have to be careful here too because we don't think this way for casters. I can play a wizard and, just by chance, emulate any number of "mage" characters in fiction.

Part of the reason this thread exists is precisely because that's not as possible for martials.


A, not really. D&D wizards are sui generis and don't emulate just about any non-D&D character well at all. D&D spellcasting in general doesn't emulate anything else well, except in the most generic sense. Mainly because comparing incomparable things is, well, not a useful idea. In which case D&D martials do it just fine.
B. You can't emulate something by accident. Emulation is, to have meaning, an intentional act. You can have similarities, but that's not emulation.



Analogies are useful because no matter how clear you are there are people making claims to the contrary, and examples are useful to push back on those claims.

But when the examples confuse more than they reveal, you send the conversation backward. Remember, I was replying to someone who said that "Thor" and "Guy who flashily hits BBEGs to death" are equivalent. That's like saying that a whale and an ocean tanker are the same because they're both big and go in the ocean. When trying to explain how petroleum moves between countries.

Plus, there are no fixed definitions for anything. I've seen people in this conversation understanding those examples in diametrically opposed ways. Heck, there isn't a fixed definition for who Thor is or what parts of his characterization, power set, and history is even relevant.

[Dr.Samurai]

A, not really. D&D wizards are sui generis and don't emulate just about any non-D&D character well at all. D&D spellcasting in general doesn't emulate anything else well, except in the most generic sense. Mainly because comparing incomparable things is, well, not a useful idea. In which case D&D martials do it just fine.
Yeah see... this is a good example. I feel like we're having two conversations. One in which things can be compared to each other and it's understood that the comparison is useful but not expected to be exact, and then there is the conversation you're having.

B. You can't emulate something by accident. Emulation is, to have meaning, an intentional act. You can have similarities, but that's not emulation.
Case in point. This seems like a sticking point more than anything else. By all means swap the word out for another and simply receive the point. I think you also used the word "replicate". You can use that one here.

Point being that wizards generally have offensive magic, and transformation magic, and illusion magic, etc. Casters are very diverse and can mimic (please baby jesus let me avoid the wrath of the literalists...) various caster tropes.

But when the examples confuse more than they reveal, you send the conversation backward. Remember, I was replying to someone who said that "Thor" and "Guy who flashily hits BBEGs to death" are equivalent. That's like saying that a whale and an ocean tanker are the same because they're both big and go in the ocean. When trying to explain how petroleum moves between countries.

Plus, there are no fixed definitions for anything. I've seen people in this conversation understanding those examples in diametrically opposed ways. Heck, there isn't a fixed definition for who Thor is or what parts of his characterization, power set, and history is even relevant.
Agreed. Asking people to define the terms is met with silence generally, though Pex did just provide his own take on it, and I also guessed at what was meant by "space god".

[Psyren]

I'm looking at each thing in its own setting--John Wick isn't normal in his own setting. Captain America isn't as flashy as (say) the Flash, but he's decidedly abnormal in his own setting. And D&D martials aren't normal in their own setting. Heck, no PC is, even at level 1. The Archmage NPC? Isn't a level 18 wizard (he's missing a crap ton of features). And he certainly didn't get there in less than an in-universe year, which is slow for many D&D PCs.

I'm not saying D&D martials have to be normal. I love Echo Knight and Soulknife and Gloom Stalker as much as the next guy. I'm saying that the more abnormal they get relative to the magical and nonmagical creatures and classes around them, the more there should be an explanation of some kind, the simplest of which would be "they tapped into some magic too."

I am then going on to say that not every subclass of martial should be overtly magical, because not everyone wants that - so long as they accept that the nonmagical subclasses like Champion Fighter and Thief Rogue won't be the strongest subclasses, then that's all I want or expect.

Lastly - I don't see the value of benchmarking fictional characters to their own setting instead of D&D as a whole. Sure John Wick might be supernormal in his low magic setting, but so would the aforementioned Champion or Thief at mid-level. If your argument is that Champions and Thieves aren't special enough, pointing to someone barely more special than they are (probably much less, with no guns around) isn't much of a case.


Once we give up the idea that any PC is normal (by any setting's standards), we can decide what the bounds of abnormality we want to support are. In both directions. And that's fundamentally arbitrary--there's no reason that "the most tricked out wizards" is the appropriate power level any more than "only things that you could see a real person doing" is definitionally the appropriate power level.

Personally, I dislike trying to analogize to fictional characters outside of D&D. Because only within a single setting is power level or even adventures/foes/threats faced even a meaningful parameter. The decision on what the appropriate power level needs to be made with reference to D&D and D&D alone, not trying to "emulate other characters" IMO.

I understand why you might want this - but tough cookies, D&D players analogize outside of D&D all the time. People want to play Conan and Harry Potter and Legolas and Thrall etc etc. There's a whole thread full of 5e builds based on extra-D&D fiction, with builds ranging from The Doctor to Po to Batman to Buffy and many more. And because of that, subclasses that cover a range of power levels are valuable.

[strangebloke]

The analogies come up because people were saying that there's no conceptual space for a high level supernormal non magic guy.

Which is ridiculous. Or at least is flowing out of a discrepancy in what people think is being proposed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not saying D&D martials have to be normal. I love Echo Knight and Soulknife and Gloom Stalker as much as the next guy. I'm saying that the more abnormal they get relative to the magical and nonmagical creatures and classes around them, the more there should be an explanation of some kind, the simplest of which would be "they tapped into some magic too."

I am then going on to say that not every subclass of martial should be overtly magical, because not everyone wants that - so long as they accept that the nonmagical subclasses like Champion Fighter and Thief Rogue won't be the strongest subclasses, then that's all I want or expect.


Even the thief rogue and champion fighter are fantastic. They rely on the background magic of D&D universes. That's because everything relies on that magic. Even all the "non-magical" stuff. Healing potions? They rely on that. Hit points? Yup. There is nothing that is not "magical" by that definition. That's my point. You can't take the magic out of a D&D setting without creating an inconsistent, incoherent mess. So you can't have a "non-magical" subclass. You can have sub-classes that don't cast spells or have flashy abilities, but the option of having a "mundane" (ie without fantastic powers) class just isn't supported. It's off the table. By fundamental universe design. And accepting that means that the Guy at the Gym can die entirely. Which frees us to decide exactly what capabilities a given class should have, without being shackled to the real world or to other fictions. D&D can decide for itself what it wants to support and doesn't want to support.

Edit: to put it shortly, I think that 4e had the best and most honest presentation on this matter with the power source concept. Everyone has a power source, and that's where you get your fantastic abilities. No "I'm just that cool/smart/handsome". They're all tied into the fantasy nature of the world from which they spring. Not the best implementation, mind, but the best concept. And it's one I've taken and incorporated into my own designs (with the serial numbers filed off, somewhat).



Lastly - I don't see the value of benchmarking fictional characters to their own setting instead of D&D as a whole. Sure John Wick might be supernormal in his low magic setting, but so would the aforementioned Champion or Thief at mid-level. If your argument is that Champions and Thieves aren't special enough, pointing to someone barely more special than they are (probably much less, with no guns around) isn't much of a case.

I understand why you might want this - but tough cookies, D&D players analogize outside of D&D all the time. People want to play Conan and Harry Potter and Legolas and Thrall etc etc. There's a whole thread full of 5e builds based on extra-D&D fiction, with builds ranging from The Doctor to Po to Batman to Buffy and many more. And because of that, subclasses that cover a range of power levels are valuable.

My only point there is that normal is not an option. All those supposedly normal characters? Yeah, they're fantastic. They have power (whether explicit superpowers or plot armor or whatever) that set them apart from the norm. As do D&D characters, just in a different (and non-comparable) way. The only sane comparison is between a character and their own setting. Any other comparison is like asking if NaN is bigger or smaller than 0. It's a fundamental error in thinking.

How strong is John Wick, if John Wick were a D&D character? How fast would an apple be, if an apple were an airplane? The answers to both of these are the same. Category error. You can't compare things that exist in different universes, because the basic operating principles aren't the same. You can't build John Wick as a D&D character. You can build something that, if you squint and ignore all the parts that aren't nearly so much the same (which is most of them), but you can't build John Wick. Or any other character. And you can't build a D&D fighter in John Wick's universe. The twain can never meet; they're completely different in nature. So trying to benchmark those to D&D characters is an exercise in futility. And worse, using that to try to decide how strong D&D characters should be is to do violence (metaphorical, of course) to D&D and its settings and internal consistency. And that's what I object to--bringing those fictional characters into a discussion of how D&D should be means making D&D worse, by making it try to do something it was never designed to do. D&D does not emulate, simulate, or even attempt to represent the entire genre of epic high fantasy, let alone all the superhero and action hero genres. That's just completely out of scope.

So saying "Aragorn did X, so a fighter should be able to do X" (or the inverse, or any other such argument based around other fiction) is an irrelevancy. The capabilities of those fictional characters has no relationship to what D&D should be or is. They're entirely disjoint. And bringing them in causes heat and misunderstandings, because people have radically different ideas of what those capabilities even are, let alone how to represent them in a radically foreign environment (such as D&D).

My entire point is that D&D (either at the individual table level or at the system level) needs to decide for itself what it will support. Bringing in other properties and other fiction doesn't help and even is harmful. If you want a generic fiction emulation package, there are plenty of those out there. Let D&D be D&D and do D&D. Because that's enough for many people, myself included. There's no need to contort it to try to accommodate people who want to play characters from other fiction and by doing so, cause problems.

Heck, you could take the core mechanics and build your own content to support that (in many cases). Which would be fine. But it won't be (and shouldn't be represented to be) compatible with D&D 5e.

None of this is to say that we should or shouldn't change anything. Just to say that other fiction should, in my very strong opinion, play no role in that decision. D&D is strong enough to stand on its own, it doesn't need to try (and fail) to bring other fiction into its umbrella. It's not a generic system and shouldn't be used (badly) to try to pretend to be one. Leave that to the systems designed for that.

[Psyren]

Even the thief rogue and champion fighter are fantastic. They rely on the background magic of D&D universes. That's because everything relies on that magic. Even all the "non-magical" stuff. Healing potions? They rely on that. Hit points? Yup. There is nothing that is not "magical" by that definition. That's my point. You can't take the magic out of a D&D setting without creating an inconsistent, incoherent mess. So you can't have a "non-magical" subclass. You can have sub-classes that don't cast spells or have flashy abilities, but the option of having a "mundane" (ie without fantastic powers) class just isn't supported. It's off the table. By fundamental universe design. And accepting that means that the Guy at the Gym can die entirely.

With you so far.


Which frees us to decide exactly what capabilities a given class should have, without being shackled to the real world or to other fictions. D&D can decide for itself what it wants to support and doesn't want to support.

This sounds great in theory, but tends to fall apart when you actually start listing abilities that break that verisimilitude.


Edit: to put it shortly, I think that 4e had the best and most honest presentation on this matter with the power source concept. Everyone has a power source, and that's where you get your fantastic abilities. No "I'm just that cool/smart/handsome". They're all tied into the fantasy nature of the world from which they spring. Not the best implementation, mind, but the best concept. And it's one I've taken and incorporated into my own designs (with the serial numbers filed off, somewhat).

Other than fluff, what distinguished the power sources from one another? Was there anything mechanically that was unique to the Divine source, that the Martial one couldn't replicate? Or vice-versa?


My only point there is that normal is not an option. All those supposedly normal characters? Yeah, they're fantastic. They have power (whether explicit superpowers or plot armor or whatever) that set them apart from the norm. As do D&D characters, just in a different (and non-comparable) way. The only sane comparison is between a character and their own setting. Any other comparison is like asking if NaN is bigger or smaller than 0. It's a fundamental error in thinking.

How strong is John Wick, if John Wick were a D&D character? How fast would an apple be, if an apple were an airplane? The answers to both of these are the same. Category error. You can't compare things that exist in different universes, because the basic operating principles aren't the same. You can't build John Wick as a D&D character. You can build something that, if you squint and ignore all the parts that aren't nearly so much the same (which is most of them), but you can't build John Wick. Or any other character. And you can't build a D&D fighter in John Wick's universe. The twain can never meet; they're completely different in nature. So trying to benchmark those to D&D characters is an exercise in futility. And worse, using that to try to decide how strong D&D characters should be is to do violence (metaphorical, of course) to D&D and its settings and internal consistency. And that's what I object to--bringing those fictional characters into a discussion of how D&D should be means making D&D worse, by making it try to do something it was never designed to do. D&D does not emulate, simulate, or even attempt to represent the entire genre of epic high fantasy, let alone all the superhero and action hero genres. That's just completely out of scope.

So saying "Aragorn did X, so a fighter should be able to do X" (or the inverse, or any other such argument based around other fiction) is an irrelevancy. The capabilities of those fictional characters has no relationship to what D&D should be or is. They're entirely disjoint. And bringing them in causes heat and misunderstandings, because people have radically different ideas of what those capabilities even are, let alone how to represent them in a radically foreign environment (such as D&D).

My entire point is that D&D (either at the individual table level or at the system level) needs to decide for itself what it will support. Bringing in other properties and other fiction doesn't help and even is harmful. If you want a generic fiction emulation package, there are plenty of those out there. Let D&D be D&D and do D&D. Because that's enough for many people, myself included. There's no need to contort it to try to accommodate people who want to play characters from other fiction and by doing so, cause problems.

Heck, you could take the core mechanics and build your own content to support that (in many cases). Which would be fine. But it won't be (and shouldn't be represented to be) compatible with D&D 5e.

None of this is to say that we should or shouldn't change anything. Just to say that other fiction should, in my very strong opinion, play no role in that decision. D&D is strong enough to stand on its own, it doesn't need to try (and fail) to bring other fiction into its umbrella. It's not a generic system and shouldn't be used (badly) to try to pretend to be one. Leave that to the systems designed for that.

There is no way in hell you're going to get people to stop building Aragorn in D&D, or benchmarking Rangers to him in some way, just by declaring them to be different fictions. Not going to happen.

[Pex]

If that's all that means...why use an analogy that doesn't hold in any detail? Why not just say "I want to be a warrior character who can get into the face of BBEGs and smack it around until dead, with flashy powers?" Or "I want to be a warrior character who can get into the face of BBEGs and smack it around until dead, but without flashy powers?" That conveys the intent in a way that doesn't import a range of subjective issues like "ok, which version of Thor? What parts of Thor matter? Etc".

I prefer if people are clear about what they mean, instead of resorting to obscuring "analogies" that aren't really useful.

Because it's easier to type or say "I want to be like Captain America" than "I want to be a warrior character who can get into the face of BBEGs and smack it around until dead". It's shorthand and helps to visualize the concept of the desired character. People know who Thor and Captain America are. They are an expression of the type of character a player wants. That's the point in being an analogy.

[Lord Raziere]

There is no way in hell you're going to get people to stop building Aragorn in D&D, or benchmarking Rangers to him in some way, just by declaring them to be different fictions. Not going to happen.

I mean yeah, your right.

The problem is by now there are better examples than Aragorn we can use for a DnD ranger. new thought: what if we use WoW Hunter/videogame class examples instead?

Because those at least have mechanical stuff attached to them, this is a mechanical problem. many games taking DnD as inspiration have solved many of these mechanical issues in their own way. like wouldn't it be more clear to point to all the things A WoW Warrior (https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Warrior) can do and figure out how those can be implemented as maneuvers? it has three stances of balanced, defensive and berserking, it has tons of moves that detail how a warrior can do more than attack without going anime, and it has a unique mechanic of building rage up to spends through fighting rather than spending mana. sure it overlaps with barbarian but I'd still think it'd be more useful than examples that honestly were probably conceived BEFORE DnD was a thing. (Captain America is from the 40's, LOTR was about the same time but separate from DnD so I doubt Tolkien had any idea about the game when writing it)

while aragorn to my knowledge never was a beastmaster, but Wow Hunter (https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Hunter) uses Focus instead of mana, can capture and tame multiple animals and put them in stables to switch out later, has various trick arrow shots, use traps they can just instantly set up, heal their pets, things like that. isn't that a clearer example than the vague skills of whatever Aragorn did that we can't map to a system?

[Gurgeh]

Just to be clear: The Lord of the Rings was first published between 1954 and 1955, and Tolkien had been working on it and its related works for decades prior to publication. It wholly predates Dungeons & Dragons.

[Pex]

I mean yeah, your right.

The problem is by now there are better examples than Aragorn we can use for a DnD ranger. new thought: what if we use WoW Hunter/videogame class examples instead?

Because those at least have mechanical stuff attached to them, this is a mechanical problem. many games taking DnD as inspiration have solved many of these mechanical issues in their own way. like wouldn't it be more clear to point to all the things A WoW Warrior (https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Warrior) can do and figure out how those can be implemented as maneuvers? it has three stances of balanced, defensive and berserking, it has tons of moves that detail how a warrior can do more than attack without going anime, and it has a unique mechanic of building rage up to spends through fighting rather than spending mana. sure it overlaps with barbarian but I'd still think it'd be more useful than examples that honestly were probably conceived BEFORE DnD was a thing. (Captain America is from the 40's, LOTR was about the same time but separate from DnD so I doubt Tolkien had any idea about the game when writing it)

while aragorn to my knowledge never was a beastmaster, but Wow Hunter (https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Hunter) uses Focus instead of mana, can capture and tame multiple animals and put them in stables to switch out later, has various trick arrow shots, use traps they can just instantly set up, heal their pets, things like that. isn't that a clearer example than the vague skills of whatever Aragorn did that we can't map to a system?

Because Aragorn is more well known than a video game archetype. Maybe one day some fictional character will become the new ranger/warrior archetype everyone talks about and very few or no one knows of Aragorn, but that day is not today. I personally first heard of him from the old cartoon movie. I only read the actual books about 6 or 7 years ago, long after the movies came out. The books have been around for a long time. People know the characters even if only by the movies. Even today people know Viggo Mortensen more for Aragorn than his other movies, and only Pirates of the Caribbean rivals the movies for Orlando Bloom's fame, but even then the movies gave him his first mass exposure (not counting his infamous paparazzi explicit photographs).


Just to be clear: The Lord of the Rings was first published between 1954 and 1955, and Tolkien had been working on it and its related works for decades prior to publication. It wholly predates Dungeons & Dragons.

D&D borrowed heavily from it. I only read the books 6 or 7 years ago. I never understood why bear warriors were a thing in D&D until I read the books. I never understood why in 2E elf lore has them travel across the sea to some far off land in their end of days, until I read the books. Spiders as monsters, treants, orcs, goblins, fighters get followers, halflings. Early D&D was heavily influenced by Lord of the Rings as it evolved from Chain Mail, and continued on from there. It's not usual for it to be a reference point for creating a character. As more media was created they too would become influencers, such as Drizzt clones some people roll their eyes about. With comic book superheroes finally becoming mainstream thanks to the Marvel movies Thor and Captain America get more press, at least here. Artificer was created in 3E for Eberron long before the Marvel movies, but I don't think it's coincidence that in 5E a new subclass was made, after the 5E Eberron book was published, where you get to play Iron Man in all but name and maybe one or two differences. It's way more Iron Man than Barbarian gets you Hulk, Tempest Cleric gets you Thor or Shield Master Battle Master gets you Captain America,

[Lord Raziere]

Because Aragorn is more well known than a video game archetype. Maybe one day some fictional character will become the new ranger/warrior archetype everyone talks about and very few or no one knows of Aragorn, but that day is not today. I personally first heard of him from the old cartoon movie. I only read the actual books about 6 or 7 years ago, long after the movies came out. The books have been around for a long time. People know the characters even if only by the movies. Even today people know Viggo Mortensen more for Aragorn than his other movies, and only Pirates of the Caribbean rivals the movies for Orlando Bloom's fame, but even then the movies gave him his first mass exposure


Yes but.

I just gave you the examples. you can literally look at them right now and compare them, and see what moves they have, what they are capable of and compare them to how fighters currently are. it may not be aragorn or something iconic but its still something more concrete for what changes to propose than "Whatever Aragorn Did That One Time, How Do You Put That Into Mechanics To Be Consistently Used As A Class Feature Without Any Guidelines To Do It With Again? Wait Never Mind Everyone is Arguing About How High Level He Actually Is For The Umpteenth Time." or vague umbrella terms about "martials" and "badass normals" that people ignore the origin/definition of because it doesn't make sense for their personal tastes. Instead of waiting for other people to do it, you can make the decision NOW to talk about it and insist that other people don't bother with examples we can't put into hard mechanics.

[Xervous]

Now that I'm at a computer I wanted to address the idea of narrative constraints, and I think someone mentioned that D&D is not a story or something along those lines.

I disagree with that idea. I think D&D is a game but I also believe it's a collaborative effort at telling or describing a story. I think the game brings together a mechanical system with a fantasy narrative. I think that's the point.

And I think we're sort of missing the point of a lot of these scenes we're discussing. The questions posed in this thread seem to me to be the point. The questions asked about badass normals in high level encounters sort of imply a situation where a high level caster will have whatever is needed to handle the situation.

And that, to me, doesn't seem like how our stories go.


As a system that is decidedly NOT concerned with enforcing narrative conventions you can do storytelling with your D&D, but usage of D&D is not inherently storytelling.

The game also assumes nothing about one standard mode of play, it merely presents the vague guidance on how many encounters a typical party might endure without being overly taxed. It’s not assuming AL play where characters can accumulate desired magic items. It’s not assuming module play where certain classes may be shafted by particulars. Neither is it automatically a hex crawl or a living world with Here There Be Dragons scribbled on the edge of the map.

I thank you for pointing out that fighter & co work fine when catered to. It sounds rather tautological but not everyone picking up the game is aware of it. The game presents all the classes in a vacuum and exclaims “go have D&D fun, whatever you think that is, we won’t stop you.” But it doesn’t warn about all the cases where Martials come up short.

A. a martial coincidentally never encounters things outside it’s tolerance of competency. Players are unaware and have no issues

B. a martial encounters issues, leading players to cater to the martial. Players (this includes the GM) are aware of the shortcomings but have made choices to not encounter the issues again.

C. a martial encounters issues but players do not have an acceptable way to cater to the martial within the scope of their already existing constraints. Here martial gets the shaft.

A mostly contains modules, AL, low level games, and is generally newer players.

B is where you’d prefer Martials to end up and it’s always nice when this can be the case

C is where people end up when they notice the issues and aren’t willing to sacrifice their campaign style / setting coherency to make the Martials work. Other game systems present a list of default assumptions and warn that straying outside them can cause issues. D&D 5e neglects to mention this for a variety of things, allowing for setups to have these issues without even the notion that warning flags should be raised.

If the game acknowledged that it’s only ideal for handling the end state of A and B there’d be trivial dismissals for the results of case C. Instead we have all the classes presented with no statements that they are of equal importance and capability, and people ending up in A, B and C.

If D&D wants to have even a semblance of the “versatile do many things system” cake the least it can do is acknowledge this issue and its various solutions that have been known for well over a decade now.

[Pex]

Yes but.

I just gave you the examples. you can literally look at them right now and compare them, and see what moves they have, what they are capable of and compare them to how fighters currently are. it may not be aragorn or something iconic but its still something more concrete for what changes to propose than "Whatever Aragorn Did That One Time, How Do You Put That Into Mechanics To Be Consistently Used As A Class Feature Without Any Guidelines To Do It With Again? Wait Never Mind Everyone is Arguing About How High Level He Actually Is For The Umpteenth Time." or vague umbrella terms about "martials" and "badass normals" that people ignore the origin/definition of because it doesn't make sense for their personal tastes. Instead of waiting for other people to do it, you can make the decision NOW to talk about it and insist that other people don't bother with examples we can't put into hard mechanics.

The question was why Aragorn and not a World of Warcraft character choice. I gave you a reason. It doesn't matter which is more accurate in game mechanics to what 5E currently offers.

[Lord Raziere]

The question was why Aragorn and not a World of Warcraft character choice. I gave you a reason. It doesn't matter which is more accurate in game mechanics to what 5E currently offers.

That question was rhetorical dude, I was try to identify a problem and provide a solution. sure you have a point, but it doesn't change the fact that the solution is there and your choosing to focus on the question as if it matters, also its not about it being accurate to 5e, its about having any mechanical basis of comparison at all because it allows us to "hey those are actual moves we can translate to 5e potentially" that has actual limits and things done for us that will be better for the conversation because it provides examples of fighters having moves that are not wuxia/anime based. that alone is more valuable than all the talk about Aragorn no matter how popular he is because this has the potential to actually get us somewhere, while Aragorn again to repeat myself: it may not be aragorn or something iconic but its still something more concrete for what changes to propose than "Whatever Aragorn Did That One Time, How Do You Put That Into Mechanics To Be Consistently Used As A Class Feature Without Any Guidelines To Do It With Again? Wait Never Mind Everyone is Arguing About How High Level He Actually Is For The Umpteenth Time."

[Psyren]

I mean yeah, your right.

The problem is by now there are better examples than Aragorn we can use for a DnD ranger. new thought: what if we use WoW Hunter/videogame class examples instead?

Because those at least have mechanical stuff attached to them, this is a mechanical problem. many games taking DnD as inspiration have solved many of these mechanical issues in their own way. like wouldn't it be more clear to point to all the things A WoW Warrior (https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Warrior) can do and figure out how those can be implemented as maneuvers? it has three stances of balanced, defensive and berserking, it has tons of moves that detail how a warrior can do more than attack without going anime, and it has a unique mechanic of building rage up to spends through fighting rather than spending mana. sure it overlaps with barbarian but I'd still think it'd be more useful than examples that honestly were probably conceived BEFORE DnD was a thing. (Captain America is from the 40's, LOTR was about the same time but separate from DnD so I doubt Tolkien had any idea about the game when writing it)

while aragorn to my knowledge never was a beastmaster, but Wow Hunter (https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Hunter) uses Focus instead of mana, can capture and tame multiple animals and put them in stables to switch out later, has various trick arrow shots, use traps they can just instantly set up, heal their pets, things like that. isn't that a clearer example than the vague skills of whatever Aragorn did that we can't map to a system?

The problem with using MMO rangers as your benchmark is now you've completely stripped the ranger of a lot of its utility and flavor. WoW Hunters (in-game) can't commune with nature, converse with plants or animals, heal their allies, climb or swim or march or forage better than anyone else, or even use two-handed or dual-wielding swords. So you're still going to end up with some Aragorn in there if you want the full package, it's inevitable.

And more generally, MMOs tend to lack interactions with the other two pillars of D&D, and even with the combat pillar your class is typically expected to occupy very specific roles with no ability (e.g. multiclassing, feats, spell selection etc) to go outside of that.

[Lord Raziere]

The problem with using MMO rangers as your benchmark is now you've completely stripped the ranger of a lot of its utility and flavor. WoW Hunters (in-game) can't commune with nature, converse with plants or animals, heal their allies, climb or swim or march or forage better than anyone else, or even use two-handed or dual-wielding swords. So you're still going to end up with some Aragorn in there if you want the full package, it's inevitable.

And more generally, MMOs tend to lack interactions with the other two pillars of D&D, and even with the combat pillar your class is typically expected to occupy very specific roles with no ability (e.g. multiclassing, feats, spell selection etc) to go outside of that.

Why would assume that it'd be total conversion to what ONLY they can do? :smallconfused:

You can just add stuff, you don't have to throw away what makes them work without them.

[Psyren]

Why would assume that it'd be total conversion to what ONLY they can do? :smallconfused:

You can just add stuff, you don't have to throw away what makes them work without them.

I'm fine with that but that means then that Aragorn is still going to be in the picture. Sure they'll add stuff to that chassis but he'll still be an indexing point for expectations of what the class fantasy is.

I personally like the idea of ranger traps and wish 5e had more for Rangers along those lines (like PF did.)

[Lord Raziere]

I'm fine with that but that means then that Aragorn is still going to be in the picture. Sure they'll add stuff to that chassis but he'll still be an indexing point for expectations of what the class fantasy is.


How!?

the 5e ranger already casts spells, has a pet subclass and so on, the 5e ranger doesn't have anything in common with him.

[Psyren]

the 5e ranger already casts spells, has a pet subclass and so on,

Yes.


the 5e ranger doesn't have anything in common with him.

No.

5e ranger can heal others, track quarry across long distances, ride various mounts, navigate groups safely through dangerous forests and caves, specialize in swords, and specialize at taking down orcs and undead. All feats Aragorn has pulled off, and several of which are unique to rangers and their class fantasy.

[Lord Raziere]

No.

5e ranger can heal others, track quarry across long distances, ride various mounts, navigate groups safely through dangerous forests and caves, specialize in swords, and specialize at taking down orcs and undead. All feats Aragorn has pulled off, and several of which are unique to rangers and their class fantasy.

1. heal others: you mean the thing that Clerics, Bards, Druids all do better?

2. track quarry: I mean....kind of. Anyone with the Survival skill could do the same

3. you mean the thing everyone does whenever they go long distance, and DnD treats like a taxi? I mean roll for animal Handling I guess but anyone can get that with the right background.

4. navigate forests and caves: in my experience, this is never useful, players will navigate these things by fumbling through them just fine.

5. specialize in swords: whoa there tiger, your overwhelming me, SWORDS!? he specializes in SWORDS!? Wow! how impressive! This is so meaningful and unique! a ranger can.....stab that guy with a blade! just like Aragorn! or.....stab another guy with a sword. like Aragorn. so many options.

6. undead and orcs: you mean monsters every adventurer faces and aren't hard to kill?

.......not really selling me on this. I don't think Aragorn is a good fit for what DnD is if this the comparison your drawing here.

[Doug Lampert]

Other than fluff, what distinguished the power sources from one another? Was there anything mechanically that was unique to the Divine source, that the Martial one couldn't replicate? Or vice-versa?

IIRC there were a handful of feats that referenced power sources. Psi worked differently than other power sources.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This sounds great in theory, but tends to fall apart when you actually start listing abilities that break that verisimilitude.


It only breaks verisimilitude if you set up your setting that way. Verisimilitude is not realism. It's inextricably bound to a single setting.



Other than fluff, what distinguished the power sources from one another? Was there anything mechanically that was unique to the Divine source, that the Martial one couldn't replicate? Or vice-versa?


I reject the qualifier. There is no fluff/crunch distinction, nor should there be. Especially here, where "fluff" is as important or more than mechanics. People aren't fighting over the mechanics of fighters getting (say) planeshift, but over the idea and how it's explained in universe.

And there were differences, but I only played 4e a bit, so I can't quote them. And anyway, it's the concept that I like. As I stated--the mechanical implementation wasn't the best (IMO), but the concept? That's useful. I've found it to be tremendously productive in my own thinking, worldbuilding, and homebrew. I don't use the exact same ones, and I don't hard-code things to the power sources like 4e did, but the ideas that
* All PCs have fantastic power from somewhere. Normal is not an option.
* This power isn't tied to "what people can do in real life" at all--a fighter can do "supernatural" things while still being martial in nature.
* Different power sources produce different thematics and tie into to different parts of the "how do I solve problems and what problems am I best at solving" space. This isn't a hard-edged thing--there is overlap. But there is also differentiation. An arcanist and a primal devotee will act differently; their power sets will differ in fundamental ways, and those ways will be reflected in the world around them and how the world treats them.

Anyway, mechanics are the least important part of a TTRPG, for me. Mechanics can be altered and adjusted; mechanics follow the fiction, not vice versa. The internal logic of the setting...not so much. And I'm much more concerned with worldbuilding (which involves having players interact with it and it with them) more than game-level concerns--I've found that if you have an engaging and coherent world, the mechanics and rules and such generally handle themselves and the whole "martials suck, casters rule" thing mostly just goes away. Because worlds where that holds true aren't engaging, coherent worlds. Verisimilitude handles itself once you have the world set up right from the ground level.[1]

Having the concept of power sources lets you clarify why, for instance, wizards aren't so much for healing. Or why druids are the ones who shape-shift while keeping their own selves (while the equivalent of that is a 9th level spell for arcanists). It helps you build worlds where the thematic elements are clear and the mechanics and the fiction are in agreement (or at least not in dire opposition).



There is no way in hell you're going to get people to stop building Aragorn in D&D, or benchmarking Rangers to him in some way, just by declaring them to be different fictions. Not going to happen.

Trying to benchmark rangers to him is silly and confining. It's bad for rangers[2], bad for Aragorn[3], and bad for discussions[4]. I can't stop people from doing silly things, but I can state loud and clear that it's silly.

[1] Which, I've found, requires rejecting the idea that real-world rules are in play. Sure, the surface level outcomes are vaguely similar as long as you don't look too hard. Things fall, people look similar, they even bleed when you cut them. Beyond that? Yeah, the underlying physical (and chemical and biological and...) laws are alien. Real-world + magic stapled on is antithetical to coherence. You can't get there from here. You have to accept that a magical world will look very different under the hood. You don't have to build all of that (since most of it is well below the level of abstraction you're dealing with), but you do have to recognize that.

[2] tying rangers to one specific character in a radically different form of fiction means they're stuck. They can't progress, they can't adapt, they're stuck to this one alien benchmark.

[3] Ranger is not a class in the Lord of the Rings. It's a title, granted by people who didn't know what they were talking about. Literally "one who ranges". Saying "Aragorn was called a ranger, so that must mean he's a Ranger" is disrespectful to who Aragorn really was (a unique character with unique capabilities and attitudes and ties to his world). It's reductionist in the extreme. Characters only exist and have meaning in the context of the world they're written for. Tearing them out of that context (in either direction) nullifies most of what makes them compelling and useful.

[4] if Aragorn is the epitome of rangers...what parts of Aragorn matter? What parts can be torn from the context of his world and compared? Movie version (if so, which one)? Book version (if so, at what stage)? Oh wait...there's no agreement here on any of these points. Same with any other character. I've seen now, in this thread alone, at least half a dozen "what's important about Thor is..." statements...and none of them agree. Bringing in foreign characters is a diversion because there isn't a shared language of what's important, relevant, or even which version we're talking about.

[Psyren]

1. heal others: you mean the thing that Clerics, Bards, Druids all do better?

2. track quarry: I mean....kind of. Anyone with the Survival skill could do the same

3. you mean the thing everyone does whenever they go long distance, and DnD treats like a taxi? I mean roll for animal Handling I guess but anyone can get that with the right background.

4. navigate forests and caves: in my experience, this is never useful, players will navigate these things by fumbling through them just fine.

5. specialize in swords: whoa there tiger, your overwhelming me, SWORDS!? he specializes in SWORDS!? Wow! how impressive! This is so meaningful and unique! a ranger can.....stab that guy with a blade! just like Aragorn! or.....stab another guy with a sword. like Aragorn. so many options.

6. undead and orcs: you mean monsters every adventurer faces and aren't hard to kill?

1. I don't care who does it "better." That's a blatant goalpost shift.
2. So Survival lets you ask rocks and trees for directions, or give the entire party +10 stealth?
3. The Ranger doesn't need a specific background to be good at it, that's the point.
4. If your GM makes the exploration pillar pointless/unchallenging that's on them, but not all tables are the same.
5. You were comparing to WoW Hunters, who can't do this.
6. "Hard to kill" is a function of level and CR, not creature type. A Wizard is a powerful class, but a L1 wizard will get absolutely bodied by a Wight.


.......not really selling me on this. I don't think Aragorn is a good fit for what DnD is if this the comparison your drawing here.

Your responses are silly and luckily for me, "selling Raziere" is completely irrelevant to D&D design.


IIRC there were a handful of feats that referenced power sources. Psi worked differently than other power sources.

Mechanically 4e Psi had a points based system instead of the standard AWED, yes. But in terms of what psionic characters could do, it was the same - Leaders healed, Defenders taunted, Strikers dpr-ed etc etc. The powers themselves were just reskinned versions of each other. 5e thankfully has not gone that route.

[Pex]

That question was rhetorical dude, I was try to identify a problem and provide a solution. sure you have a point, but it doesn't change the fact that the solution is there and your choosing to focus on the question as if it matters, also its not about it being accurate to 5e, its about having any mechanical basis of comparison at all because it allows us to "hey those are actual moves we can translate to 5e potentially" that has actual limits and things done for us that will be better for the conversation because it provides examples of fighters having moves that are not wuxia/anime based. that alone is more valuable than all the talk about Aragorn no matter how popular he is because this has the potential to actually get us somewhere, while Aragorn again to repeat myself: it may not be aragorn or something iconic but its still something more concrete for what changes to propose than "Whatever Aragorn Did That One Time, How Do You Put That Into Mechanics To Be Consistently Used As A Class Feature Without Any Guidelines To Do It With Again? Wait Never Mind Everyone is Arguing About How High Level He Actually Is For The Umpteenth Time."

If it was rhetorical you wouldn't have engaged the conversation. Now you're backpedaling. People will still talk about Aragorn because he's more well known than a World of Warcraft character choice. It's the frame of reference people know. You may like the World of Warcraft character choice as your preferred ranger/warrior archetype, but as of today Aragorn is more well known. Maybe one day World of Warcraft will be more known. It had its chances. Leeroy Jenkins was a meme. South Park had a funny episode dedicated to it. It even made an appearance on How I Met Your Mother. A movie was made. For whatever reason it didn't gain traction to surpass Aragorn as the goto ranger/warrior archetype. Also working in Aragorn's favor is him being a literary character. There's an epic story connected to him. World of Warcraft is a computer game. It has its own story, true. but it's a computer game where you can plug in anything. You can be a ranger, a cleric, a fighter, a wizard, or whatever classes it has to play the game. I was briefly introduced to it many years ago just to try it out and played a few minutes as a skeleton character. There's no empathic connection to reference.

When someone asks how to make a character like Aragorn, help him. Don't yell at him because he didn't ask how to make a character like a World of Warcraft ranger.

[Lord Raziere]

I was just trying to have a more solid example to work with, but okay, go back to being confused at each other over what Aragorn actually is or isn't. Nevermind.

[strangebloke]

I mean the easier thing to say is that although the ranger archetype started with aragorn, its diverged since then and now the archetype in DND draws more from examples like the WOW hunter, and whether you feel that 'aragorn' feels more like a fighter or a ranger or even a scout comes down to personal preference.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Xervous - I don't think it's been made clear what the "issues" are, at least in this thread. A major portion of the complaints throughout this thread was "fighters cannot move to another plane of existence by virtue of their own class features". This to me seems like a feature rather than a bug. Same thing with not having the ability to fly, or create earthquakes. As a reminder, the thread was started to give martials more interesting abilities, as opposed to make martials relevant at high levels or able to compete with casters. We are not agreed that there are these issues in the first place.

I mean the easier thing to say is that although the ranger archetype started with aragorn, its diverged since then and now the archetype in DND draws more from examples like the WOW hunter, and whether you feel that 'aragorn' feels more like a fighter or a ranger or even a scout comes down to personal preference.
There is a strain of literalism and inflexibility throughout this thread that has made the conversation and comments like yours difficult to occur.

[Xervous]

@Xervous - I don't think it's been made clear what the "issues" are, at least in this thread. A major portion of the complaints throughout this thread was "fighters cannot move to another plane of existence by virtue of their own class features". This to me seems like a feature rather than a bug. Same thing with not having the ability to fly, or create earthquakes. As a reminder, the thread was started to give martials more interesting abilities, as opposed to make martials relevant at high levels or able to compete with casters. We are not agreed that there are these issues in the first place.


Never having encountered the issues or having personal structures in place to avoid the issues does not remove the issue at the system level.

The issue exists at a system level because the system leaves the input options for “what are we doing with D&D?” wide open. There’s no “are you sure you want to make a 2GB file as this will consume a lot of RAM?” No warning signs against removing the shroud while the motor is running. Martials are not experiencing issues in every use case, but enough people have burnt themselves on coffee for there to be a warning. Enough people have experienced unsatisfactory performance from the system for the risks of certain types of play to be worth highlighting in a core rulebook. Looking back, prior editions hold to a long tradition of acknowledging that handing out too much (or too little) in the way of magic items can cause problems AND that there is not going to be one rule for every campaign on that front. What’s stopping us from having a section explaining that:

Some play D&D with the direction of the adventure being determined by the players rather than the sequencing of a printed or GM written adventure path. Players are free to run off to the mountains if they so wish (or at least try to cross the haunted marsh in the way!) rather than engage with the plight of a city. With so much freedom a GM needs to be mindful of characters that have more or fewer abilities that grant them explicit permissions when interacting with the world. Some players will dislike not having as many opportunities to try unique things. Provide too many unique opportunities to every player and some players may feel their character’s identity is irrelevant because anything they brought to the table would be given an equal helping of opportunities regardless. A balance must be struck in providing unique opportunities outside of those enabled by the virtues of a character’s class, but the actual frequency and magnitude will depend on you and your players’ desires. Discuss with your players what their expectations are to reach a consensus. The only wrong answers here are the ones you and your players don’t like.

[Jakinbandw]

Never having encountered the issues or having personal structures in place to avoid the issues does not remove the issue at the system level.

The issue exists at a system level because the system leaves the input options for “what are we doing with D&D?” wide open. There’s no “are you sure you want to make a 2GB file as this will consume a lot of RAM?” No warning signs against removing the shroud while the motor is running. Martials are not experiencing issues in every use case, but enough people have burnt themselves on coffee for there to be a warning. Enough people have experienced unsatisfactory performance from the system for the risks of certain types of play to be worth highlighting in a core rulebook. Looking back, prior editions hold to a long tradition of acknowledging that handing out too much (or too little) in the way of magic items can cause problems AND that there is not going to be one rule for every campaign on that front. What’s stopping us from having a section explaining that:

Some play D&D with the direction of the adventure being determined by the players rather than the sequencing of a printed or GM written adventure path. Players are free to run off to the mountains if they so wish (or at least try to cross the haunted marsh in the way!) rather than engage with the plight of a city. With so much freedom a GM needs to be mindful of characters that have more or fewer abilities that grant them explicit permissions when interacting with the world. Some players will dislike not having as many opportunities to try unique things. Provide too many unique opportunities to every player and some players may feel their character’s identity is irrelevant because anything they brought to the table would be given an equal helping of opportunities regardless. A balance must be struck in providing unique opportunities outside of those enabled by the virtues of a character’s class, but the actual frequency and magnitude will depend on you and your players’ desires. Discuss with your players what their expectations are to reach a consensus. The only wrong answers here are the ones you and your players don’t like.

There are some very vocal people that want the game to do the thinking for them and tell them how to play. The common response I hear from them is: "It's on the designer to build the system, otherwise I'm just paying to build it for them and at that point I might as well make my own system."

It's the only reason I can think to not include a section like you've outlined anyway.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Xervous: I don't see anything wrong with including something like that. I feel like there is language to some degree explaining that the DM will ad hoc things for each particular table (which is broader than what we're discussing), but maybe I'm just imagining that.

[Psyren]

@Xervous - I don't think it's been made clear what the "issues" are, at least in this thread. A major portion of the complaints throughout this thread was "fighters cannot move to another plane of existence by virtue of their own class features". This to me seems like a feature rather than a bug. Same thing with not having the ability to fly, or create earthquakes. As a reminder, the thread was started to give martials more interesting abilities, as opposed to make martials relevant at high levels or able to compete with casters. We are not agreed that there are these issues in the first place.

There is a strain of literalism and inflexibility throughout this thread that has made the conversation and comments like yours difficult to occur.

For the record, I'm not completely against earthquakes (especially for a high level barbarian) or flight. Definitely agreed on the planar travel bit, but Horizon Walker comes close to what I think martial ability in this arena should be.


Never having encountered the issues or having personal structures in place to avoid the issues does not remove the issue at the system level.

The issue exists at a system level because the system leaves the input options for “what are we doing with D&D?” wide open. There’s no “are you sure you want to make a 2GB file as this will consume a lot of RAM?” No warning signs against removing the shroud while the motor is running. Martials are not experiencing issues in every use case, but enough people have burnt themselves on coffee for there to be a warning. Enough people have experienced unsatisfactory performance from the system for the risks of certain types of play to be worth highlighting in a core rulebook. Looking back, prior editions hold to a long tradition of acknowledging that handing out too much (or too little) in the way of magic items can cause problems AND that there is not going to be one rule for every campaign on that front. What’s stopping us from having a section explaining that:

Some play D&D with the direction of the adventure being determined by the players rather than the sequencing of a printed or GM written adventure path. Players are free to run off to the mountains if they so wish (or at least try to cross the haunted marsh in the way!) rather than engage with the plight of a city. With so much freedom a GM needs to be mindful of characters that have more or fewer abilities that grant them explicit permissions when interacting with the world. Some players will dislike not having as many opportunities to try unique things. Provide too many unique opportunities to every player and some players may feel their character’s identity is irrelevant because anything they brought to the table would be given an equal helping of opportunities regardless. A balance must be struck in providing unique opportunities outside of those enabled by the virtues of a character’s class, but the actual frequency and magnitude will depend on you and your players’ desires. Discuss with your players what their expectations are to reach a consensus. The only wrong answers here are the ones you and your players don’t like.

Players already have completely equal opportunity to do all the things magic can do, they are free to play a spellcaster.

[Waazraath]

Maybe a sidenote, but 3.0 and 3.5 had really nice martial classes that, due to an inner connection to the planes or due to being exposed to planar travel, developed interesting planeshifting and/or teleportation powers, while for the rest they stayed pure martial - like the Planar Champion from 3.0 Manual of the planes, and the spell-less Jaunter from the Demonweb pits (3.5).

This concept provided both outrages abilities, an identified power source explaining them, and for the rest they could just contribute by hitting the enemies in the face as main schtick.

[Pex]

There are some very vocal people that want the game to do the thinking for them and tell them how to play. The common response I hear from them is: "It's on the designer to build the system, otherwise I'm just paying to build it for them and at that point I might as well make my own system."

It's the only reason I can think to not include a section like you've outlined anyway.

Guilty without guilt. Experience has shown that when it is up to the DM to make it up they will err on the side of better not to have that or only this once. It's not out of malice but legitimate concern the Thing will break the game in repeated use. There already exists complaints of official printed Things being too powerful or too weak and disagreement on whether that Thing is too powerful or too weak. You cannot please everyone, but there has to be something official and deal with it. The DM can handle minor rulings. That's his job. When it comes to the fundamentals of playing the game, that job belongs to the game developers.

[Lord Raziere]

Players already have completely equal opportunity to do all the things magic can do, they are free to play a spellcaster.

Just letting you know this attitude doesn't help, this just makes me want to martials to be empowered even more.

[GloatingSwine]

Guilty without guilt. Experience has shown that when it is up to the DM to make it up they will err on the side of better not to have that or only this once. It's not out of malice but legitimate concern the Thing will break the game in repeated use. There already exists complaints of official printed Things being too powerful or too weak and disagreement on whether that Thing is too powerful or too weak. You cannot please everyone, but there has to be something official and deal with it. The DM can handle minor rulings. That's his job. When it comes to the fundamentals of playing the game, that job belongs to the game developers.

This is also a stumbling block for the common idea that martials should have the gap between them and casters closed by magic items. Whether they can get magic items, what they can get, and how often they can use it is all in the hands of the DM who may simply balk at giving them out.

That's why the things that a high level character can be reasonably expected to need (ie. ways for a dude with a pointy stick to remove high level obstacles between himself and the thing he wants to poke with the stick, which may include dimensional boundaries and environments inimical to his species) but martials don't have really need to be put as explicitly in the hands of the player as "pick two spells when you level up" is for Wizards.

[Psyren]

Just letting you know this attitude doesn't help, this just makes me want to martials to be empowered even more.

It helps me :smalltongue::smallwink:

But more seriously, I don't mind martials being *stronger,* monk especially. I just suspect I wouldn't go quite as far with it as you and bloke.


This is also a stumbling block for the common idea that martials should have the gap between them and casters closed by magic items. Whether they can get magic items, what they can get, and how often they can use it is all in the hands of the DM who may simply balk at giving them out.

That's why the things that a high level character can be reasonably expected to need (ie. ways for a dude with a pointy stick to remove high level obstacles between himself and the thing he wants to poke with the stick, which may include dimensional boundaries and environments inimical to his species) but martials don't have really need to be put as explicitly in the hands of the player as "pick two spells when you level up" is for Wizards.

They don't really have to "remove dimensional boundaries" when portals exist. And I would envision a high level martial as being hardy enough that most planar environments simply shouldn't bother them much.

[strangebloke]

Just letting you know this attitude doesn't help, this just makes me want to martials to be empowered even more.

I wouldn't say martials need to be able to do anything casters can do.

But they should be able to do something. I mean, come on.

[GloatingSwine]

It helps me :smalltongue::smallwink:

But more seriously, I don't mind martials being *stronger,* monk especially. I just suspect I wouldn't go quite as far with it as you and bloke.



They don't really have to "remove dimensional boundaries" when portals exist. And I would envision a high level martial as being hardy enough that most planar environments simply shouldn't bother them much.

Right, but if your answer is portals then at the point a wizard can reasonably be expected to be able to cast plane shift a non-caster needs to be able to declare the existence of a relevant portal whether the DM has deigned to place one or not.

When the Wizard has Plane Shift (can be selected just by levelling up) and the appropriate tuning fork (a 250gp component so not terribly inaccessible) the DM has no power over when or in what circumstances they get used, whereas all the options for martials that get suggested without giving them a new class feature tend to be things the DM has to specifically allow every time.

[strangebloke]

Right, but if your answer is portals then at the point a wizard can reasonably be expected to be able to cast plane shift a non-caster needs to be able to declare the existence of a relevant portal whether the DM has deigned to place one or not.

When the Wizard has Plane Shift (can be selected just by levelling up) and the appropriate tuning fork (a 250gp component so not terribly inaccessible) the DM has no power over when or in what circumstances they get used, whereas all the options for martials that get suggested without giving them a new class feature tend to be things the DM has to specifically allow every time.

the bolded bit is the trouble, as has come up several times in the thread. There's no reason the DM has to give the PCs access to such a component. Realistically such a thing should be extremely rare unless there is a lot of planar travel going on in which case... yeah, natural portal. The wizard may feel in control but at the end of the day all they're getting is slightly more consistent access to a plane than the DM could give them otherwise.

And regardless, having access to a specific plane because of a spell isn't that game warping? Like I can't think of a moment in a sandbox campaign where "Oh gee, lets go to the city of brass right now" has ever been something the PCs wanted to do. It's almost always been the result of specific breadcrumbs pointing in that direction, like "You think you could get this sword repaired by the legendary smiths of the Efreeti"

[Talakeal]

I am then going on to say that not every subclass of martial should be overtly magical, because not everyone wants that - so long as they accept that the nonmagical subclasses like Champion Fighter and Thief Rogue won't be the strongest subclasses, then that's all I want or expect.

I think even that is going a bit too far. I don't think designers should start with the default assumption that magic is inherently stronger than non-magical options, for that way lies 3E ivory tower madness.


Even the thief rogue and champion fighter are fantastic. They rely on the background magic of D&D universes. That's because everything relies on that magic. Even all the "non-magical" stuff. Healing potions? They rely on that. Hit points? Yup. There is nothing that is not "magical" by that definition. That's my point. You can't take the magic out of a D&D setting without creating an inconsistent, incoherent mess. So you can't have a "non-magical" subclass. You can have sub-classes that don't cast spells or have flashy abilities, but the option of having a "mundane" (ie without fantastic powers) class just isn't supported. It's off the table. By fundamental universe design. And accepting that means that the Guy at the Gym can die entirely. Which frees us to decide exactly what capabilities a given class should have, without being shackled to the real world or to other fictions. D&D can decide for itself what it wants to support and doesn't want to support.

Is this your house-rule / head-canon or are you saying that this is the default for D&D?

Because I think there is some pretty strong evidence in D&D that this is not the case by RAW, and most of the conflicts between the rules and reality are simply modelling errors much like you would find in any game, including those set in explicitly magic free settings.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is this your house-rule / head-canon or are you saying that this is the default for D&D?

Because I think there is some pretty strong evidence in D&D that this is not the case by RAW, and most of the conflicts between the rules and reality are simply modelling errors much like you would find in any game, including those set in explicitly magic free settings.

I'm saying that this is the best reading of the rules and associated worldbuilding. We know that background magic is in and through everything. It's how everything works. There is a sidebar to that effect in the PHB and it's confirmed in the Sage Advice. Healing potions are called out as magic items. We have people who can do things very few others can--PC-classed individuals are explicitly called out as the exception. You have rogues (all of them) who can stand in front of a dragon's breath, in clear terrain with no cover...and come out without a scratch. You have fighters who can shoot 8 aimed heavy crossbow shots in 6 seconds while running 30' carrying 150 lbs on unsteady terrain. Where a 30 lb, 2'5" halfling can beat a 7'6", 400 lb goliath in a wrestling match and can kill a dragon by poking it with a sword (despite that sword being the size of a knitting needle). Where swearing an Oath grants immunity to disease and allows you to shield your allies from a spell. All without casting a spell or performing overt "magic".

There is no indication that the world works by real-world physical laws. Not even a mention. So the options are
1) you have an incoherent world that is impossible to reason about, with no physical laws that can be called as such where magic is some kind of "exception"...that is in and through everything.
2) you have a coherent world whose laws aren't those of the real world, where magic is part and parcel of everything. Where the idea of a magical/non-magical divide[1] is just not a thing, where magic is physical law

What you can't have is a coherent world that runs on real-world physical laws that has magic. Those are fundamentally incompatible.

Which one do you prefer?

[1] spell vs non-spell is a meaningful divide. But everything's magic, because there's magic in everything. Not everything does magic, but everything is magic.

[Psyren]

I think even that is going a bit too far. I don't think designers should start with the default assumption that magic is inherently stronger than non-magical options, for that way lies 3E ivory tower madness.

Respectfully, tough, that's what we're working with. Unless they come up with a different explanation like technology.

[Talakeal]

I'm saying that this is the best reading of the rules and associated worldbuilding. We know that background magic is in and through everything. It's how everything works. There is a sidebar to that effect in the PHB and it's confirmed in the Sage Advice. Healing potions are called out as magic items. We have people who can do things very few others can--PC-classed individuals are explicitly called out as the exception. You have rogues (all of them) who can stand in front of a dragon's breath, in clear terrain with no cover...and come out without a scratch. You have fighters who can shoot 8 aimed heavy crossbow shots in 6 seconds while running 30' carrying 150 lbs on unsteady terrain. Where a 30 lb, 2'5" halfling can beat a 7'6", 400 lb goliath in a wrestling match and can kill a dragon by poking it with a sword (despite that sword being the size of a knitting needle). Where swearing an Oath grants immunity to disease and allows you to shield your allies from a spell. All without casting a spell or performing overt "magic".

There is no indication that the world works by real-world physical laws. Not even a mention. So the options are
1) you have an incoherent world that is impossible to reason about, with no physical laws that can be called as such where magic is some kind of "exception"...that is in and through everything.
2) you have a coherent world whose laws aren't those of the real world, where magic is part and parcel of everything. Where the idea of a magical/non-magical divide[1] is just not a thing, where magic is physical law

What you can't have is a coherent world that runs on real-world physical laws that has magic. Those are fundamentally incompatible.

Which one do you prefer?

[1] spell vs non-spell is a meaningful divide. But everything's magic, because there's magic in everything. Not everything does magic, but everything is magic.

Acknowledge that all games are imperfect simulations and use your imagination?

Like, you are quibbling about crossbow rates of fire, when you will get the exact same situation in western or modern military games where, due to balance the abstraction of turns, rates of fire (and movement speed, and encumbrance) don't line up precisely with real world values. Do you insist that Aces and Eights and Spycraft are magical games where everything is magical for the same reason?

I am not quite sure I understand your point about healing potions, the fact that they are explicitly listed as magic items and show up to detect magic seems to contradict the idea that everything must be magical.

And I admit I am not an expert on 5E, they might have decided to just throw up their hands and go gonzo, but I can show you quotes from Gary Gygax, Skip Williams, and extensive sections of the Worldbuilder's Guidebook (imo the best D&D book ever written) which imply that the default idea of the game was to function like real life + fantastic elements rather than all magic all the time nothing has to make sense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

3)Acknowledge that all games are imperfect simulations and use your imagination?

4) Like, you are quibbling about crossbow rates of fire, when you will get the exact same situation in western or modern military games where, due to balance the abstraction of turns, rates of fire (and movement speed, and encumbrance) don't line up precisely with real world values. Do you insist that Aces and Eights and Spycraft are magical games where everything is magical for the same reason?

1) I am not quite sure I understand your point about healing potions, the fact that they are explicitly listed as magic items and show up to detect magic seems to contradict the idea that everything must be magical.

2)And I admit I am not an expert on 5E, they might have decided to just throw up their hands and go gonzo, but I can show you quotes from Gary Gygax, Skip Williams, and extensive sections of the Worldbuilder's Guidebook (imo the best D&D book ever written) which imply that the default idea of the game was to function like real life + fantastic elements rather than all magic all the time nothing has to make sense.

1) huh? the point was that all that stuff's magic. Detect magic is misnamed--it only detects certain types of magic. CF Sage Advice
2) Each edition's lore stands alone. What Gygax cared about no longer matters. Gygax hasn't been involved since about the time I was born.
3) lets' see, one interpretation requires dealing with models that don't fit...and the other doesn't. One model restricts some people in strange ways, the other allows space to grow. One model causes incoherent worldbuilding, the other solves the issue. Hmmm.....
4) When one simple change explains almost all of the model-fit issues, why not accept it? Because of old-edition legacy hangovers and reliance on things the game never promised?

[Dienekes]

Respectfully, tough, that's what we're working with. Unless they come up with a different explanation like technology.

Out of curiosity, why? Other than that's the style of play you like, of course.

I can think of a fair few fantasy settings where magic is present and useful, while also being limited in ways that mundane options very much are the best in specific situations. Honestly, I tend to like those stories far more than ones where magic is always the answer.

[Talakeal]

Respectfully, tough, that's what we're working with. Unless they come up with a different explanation like technology.

Why do you say that?

Unless we are talking about 3E core classes, I don't think fighters and rogues being underpowered is ever taken as a given; indeed it seems like these days I see far more people complaining about how OP mundanes shatter their immersion and need nerfs than people who are calling for buffs.


1) huh? the point was that all that stuff's magic. Detect magic is misnamed--it only detects certain types of magic. CF Sage Advice

I don't follow, and am not finding what you are referancing. Can you provide a link?



4) When one simple change explains almost all of the model-fit issues, why not accept it? Because of old-edition legacy hangovers and reliance on things the game never promised?

Because it would be impossible for me to ever take the game seriously or respect it. Unless we are going for a fourth wall breaking comedy game, which is only good in short doses (even OoTS doesn't do it all or even most of the time). Immersion and verisimilitude are fun for me, and enforcing a hard "rules = physics" because "everything is magic" does not do it for me.

Honestly, I can't see that scenario not ending up with out and out cheating are bullying of the DM.


2) Each edition's lore stands alone. What Gygax cared about no longer matters. Gygax hasn't been involved since about the time I was born.

Sorry, I was more talking about fantasy adventure games as a concept. If you are correct, than you have successfully convinced me that 5E is garbage and I shouldn't play it, but I don't think that was your intent.


3)One model restricts some people in strange ways, the other allows space to grow. One model causes incoherent worldbuilding, the other solves the issue. Hmmm....

Restrictions are VERY important. Having restrictions on characters is not in any way a bad thing. Up-thread someone mentioned how lame a "a winner is you" ability that caused you to automatically win combat would be, and unrestricted characters are much the same.

To use another analogy, a friend was hyping up a game as having tons of character creation options (he knows how much I love character creation) but then when I saw it I realized it was just sliders to make your own character, and I was super disappointed because I lack the artistic ability to make anything look good (let alone how I envision it) using sliders. He didn't understand the difference, and I said that would be like calling a lumber yard the world's biggest furniture store because, theoretically, you can make whatever furniture you wanted.


One model causes incoherent worldbuilding, the other solves the issue. Hmmm....

I don't see any incoherent world-building. I can see tons of counter examples; for example many maps include privys despite the fact that nobody in the world ever has to go to the bathroom, and all sorts of commoner railgun / bucket healing nonsense, and 4e style spherical squares, but not the other way around.

Can you give an example?

[Dr.Samurai]

There is no indication that the world works by real-world physical laws. Not even a mention.
This to me reads as a hyper-literal interpretation of the game.

I mean... why is the rogue's ability to remain unscathed from a dragon's fire breath called "Evasion"? Is it a coincidence that the agile, slippery class that is based on Dexterity has an ability called "Evasion" that allows him to evade area of effect damage? This is not based on physics at all? Why isn't it simply called "Limited Invincibility" instead? Why evoke an image of the rogue being fast and agile?

Why is ice difficult terrain and slippery in the game?

Why does falling cause damage?

Why can't all characters just fly through the air at character creation?

Why is encumbrance based on Strength? Well, why can characters even be encumbered at all?

How come there are sizes?

Why does the game tell us how much things cost?

Why does the game mention how long people can hold their breath or go without eating?

And on and on and on. The notion that the game isn't based on a reality similar to our own and real-world-physics-be-damned is preposterous and not at all helpful to the conversation.


What you can't have is a coherent world that runs on real-world physical laws that has magic. Those are fundamentally incompatible.
That is precisely what we have right now and have had in every edition of D&D.

A halfling isn't able to grapple a goliath because there is magic in the world. A halfling can grapple a goliath because this is a game based on dice rolls and modifiers. (Sam didn't stand his ground against the incredible might of Shelob because he was "magical".) Human fighters can submerge themselves in lava at 20th level and survive because this is a game with a hit point abstraction, not because fighters are magical.

D&D is not a precise simulation of reality, but it is of course using reality as the foundation for the world settings, and then adding in magical creatures, planes, spells, etc.

[Pex]

There is no indication that the world works by real-world physical laws. Not even a mention. So the options are
1) you have an incoherent world that is impossible to reason about, with no physical laws that can be called as such where magic is some kind of "exception"...that is in and through everything.
2) you have a coherent world whose laws aren't those of the real world, where magic is part and parcel of everything. Where the idea of a magical/non-magical divide[1] is just not a thing, where magic is physical law

What you can't have is a coherent world that runs on real-world physical laws that has magic. Those are fundamentally incompatible.

Which one do you prefer?



3) Don't care. Let's just play the game.

Really, it's not that important. The game mechanics needs to function and be fun to use. The DM is fair and provides fun adventures. The Players are fun to be around and enjoy. For some people martials aren't feeling enough game mechanics fun to use because "I attack" is their best option, martials I think being primarily Barbarians, Fighters, and Rangers in this case. People are happy with Paladin, Rogue, and Monk. Ranger has other issues beyond this thread, giving ideas on what can be done besides "I attack". Some people want class power buttons to use out of combat. Other people are fine with class power buttons be only used for combat but encourage DMs to engage the character with the gameworld. Having a castle and followers is the stereotypical route, but there are other ways. I'm fine with either way.

[Brookshw]

I'm saying that this is the best reading of the rules and associated worldbuilding. We know that background magic is in and through everything. It's how everything works. There is a sidebar to that effect in the PHB and it's confirmed in the Sage Advice. Healing potions are called out as magic items. We have people who can do things very few others can--PC-classed individuals are explicitly called out as the exception. You have rogues (all of them) who can stand in front of a dragon's breath, in clear terrain with no cover...and come out without a scratch. You have fighters who can shoot 8 aimed heavy crossbow shots in 6 seconds while running 30' carrying 150 lbs on unsteady terrain. Where a 30 lb, 2'5" halfling can beat a 7'6", 400 lb goliath in a wrestling match and can kill a dragon by poking it with a sword (despite that sword being the size of a knitting needle). Where swearing an Oath grants immunity to disease and allows you to shield your allies from a spell. All without casting a spell or performing overt "magic".

There is no indication that the world works by real-world physical laws. Not even a mention. So the options are
1) you have an incoherent world that is impossible to reason about, with no physical laws that can be called as such where magic is some kind of "exception"...that is in and through everything.
2) you have a coherent world whose laws aren't those of the real world, where magic is part and parcel of everything. Where the idea of a magical/non-magical divide[1] is just not a thing, where magic is physical law

What you can't have is a coherent world that runs on real-world physical laws that has magic. Those are fundamentally incompatible.

Which one do you prefer?

[1] spell vs non-spell is a meaningful divide. But everything's magic, because there's magic in everything. Not everything does magic, but everything is magic.

I'm getting the sense we're nearing a slippery slope, if we start ascribing everything to all permeating magic, kinda raises some questions like why you can't counterspell evasion, or why the fighter could still make that many shots in an AMF.


It helps me :smalltongue::smallwink:
Thanks, that made me laugh, and is a fair point. Incidentally, I was talking about this topic with one of my players, his immediate response to the topic was "why don't they just go play wizards?"

[Lord Raziere]

Thanks, that made me laugh, and is a fair point. Incidentally, I was talking about this topic with one of my players, his immediate response to the topic was "why don't they just go play wizards?"

That attitude doesn't help either! It really doesn't! It is pain! Like its nearing a pet peeve of mine! To me, Wizards and wuxia/anime powers are not the same and never will be, I will die on this hill!

[Pex]

Thanks, that made me laugh, and is a fair point. Incidentally, I was talking about this topic with one of my players, his immediate response to the topic was "why don't they just go play wizards?"

Players are not wrong to wanting to play the warrior archetype and feel relevant at high levels. Some people are not feeling relevant with the rules as they currently are. Telling them to play wizards is not a solution to their issue.

[Brookshw]

Players are not wrong to wanting to play the warrior archetype and feel relevant at high levels. Some people are not feeling relevant with the rules as they currently are. Telling them to play wizards is not a solution to their issue.

Not a solution some people like at any rate, I understand. Pretty sure Psyren's initial comment was more tongue in cheek than anything I'm sure.

[Psyren]

Out of curiosity, why? Other than that's the style of play you like, of course.

I can think of a fair few fantasy settings where magic is present and useful, while also being limited in ways that mundane options very much are the best in specific situations. Honestly, I tend to like those stories far more than ones where magic is always the answer.

I don't think "magic is stronger" = "magic is always the answer" at all. Magic being stronger doesn't mean it's the most accessible or practical solution to a given problem.


Why do you say that?

Unless we are talking about 3E core classes, I don't think fighters and rogues being underpowered is ever taken as a given; indeed it seems like these days I see far more people complaining about how OP mundanes shatter their immersion and need nerfs than people who are calling for buffs.

How do you define "underpowered?" Played properly, a party of 4 fighters or 4 rogues can beat up anything level-appropriate in the monster manual. I think we need to get away from this notion that "not as potent as a full caster" = "underpowered."

[Dienekes]

I don't think "magic is stronger" = "magic is always the answer" at all. Magic being stronger doesn't mean it's the most accessible or practical solution to a given problem.


And how do these work out in game terms?

D&D attempted to make magic revolve around spell slots, but that path ends with the entire day being based around how many slots your most powerful classes have left.

And the amusing but very insulting reality of “this isn’t as important as something we’ll see later, so I’m not gonna use my spell slots. So, sure you can try to do it martial. Go get ‘em champ.”

The other main option I see is making the actual use of magic complicated, which often fails at Grodd’s Law. Which, ends up just a call for the minmaxers to do their thing.

I think part of this comes down to what we see as the goal of the game system. To me, it’s when every character when played to near equal level of skill will have near equal contribution to success of the party in combat and out. Sure characters can have their strengths and weaknesses. But if the day is mechanically dictated by one player or a subgroup of players, I see that as a failing of the system.

[strangebloke]

I'm getting the sense we're nearing a slippery slope, if we start ascribing everything to all permeating magic, kinda raises some questions like why you can't counterspell evasion, or why the fighter could still make that many shots in an AMF.

Because counterspell is a spell that counters spells, and though evasion may be magical in the Webster sense, that is "something done with mysterious or supernatural forces," its not a spell. This isn't that hard of a divide to make conceptually, and DND has way more arbitrary divisions. Hercules is certainly not operating on real world physics. He is certainly gifted with supernatural ability, at least in the way that you or I would understand nature. But what he does isn't spellcasting.

Like realtalk, how much sleep would you lose if every one of the 'smite' and 'strike' line spells were instead manuevers that only paladins and rangers could access? Personally I wouldn't lose a wink

[Brookshw]

Because counterspell is a spell that counters spells, and though evasion may be magical in the Webster sense, that is "something done with mysterious or supernatural forces," its not a spell. This isn't that hard of a divide to make conceptually, and DND has way more arbitrary divisions. Hercules is certainly not operating on real world physics. He is certainly gifted with supernatural ability, at least in the way that you or I would understand nature. But what he does isn't spellcasting.

Like realtalk, how much sleep would you lose if every one of the 'smite' and 'strike' line spells were instead manuevers that only paladins and rangers could access? Personally I wouldn't lose a wink

Understandable, though as soon as we start justifying what people can do based on inherent magical quantities that permeate everything in the setting, it raises certain verisimilitude issues about how those things can't be shut down in the same way magic can. 3.5 did it by the (Ex) tag, but didn't use an 'everything is magical baked in' approach, so the issue is a bit different in that edition. At any rate, I appreciate the issue won't be significant for some.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think part of this comes down to what we see as the goal of the game system. To me, it’s when every character when played to near equal level of skill will have near equal contribution to success of the party in combat and out.
But how would this work in a game? My current party is made up of a ranger, a wizard, a cleric, and a barbarian. What does it mean that everyone is equally impactful?

The wizard can use Hypnotic Pattern to lock down a good portion or even the entire encounter if the rolls go his way. What does it look like when the ranger and barbarian have equally impactful abilities? Even if it doesn't mean my barbarian has the same amount of control, but maybe can do more attacks or something, how does the DM balance encounters when everyone must be as impactful as the most impactful utility/crowd control person in the party?

[Pex]

And how do these work out in game terms?

D&D attempted to make magic revolve around spell slots, but that path ends with the entire day being based around how many slots your most powerful classes have left.

And the amusing but very insulting reality of “this isn’t as important as something we’ll see later, so I’m not gonna use my spell slots. So, sure you can try to do it martial. Go get ‘em champ.”

The other main option I see is making the actual use of magic complicated, which often fails at Grodd’s Law. Which, ends up just a call for the minmaxers to do their thing.

I think part of this comes down to what we see as the goal of the game system. To me, it’s when every character when played to near equal level of skill will have near equal contribution to success of the party in combat and out. Sure characters can have their strengths and weaknesses. But if the day is mechanically dictated by one player or a subgroup of players, I see that as a failing of the system.

It's a matter of perspective. When the fighter can handle the mob such that the wizard doesn't have to cast Fireball I call that the fighter doing his job equally contributing. I call it teamwork when the wizard is to use a 3rd level spell slot anyway and buffs the barbarian with Haste then hides to keep concentration and take pot shots with Fire Bolt while the barbarian Hulk Smashes everything. At low level let the cleric concentrate on Protection From Evil and Good on the paladin and run away to hide while said paladin frolics among the intellect devours slicing away. The paladin saves his spell slot for a smite later. High five!

[Psyren]

And the amusing but very insulting reality of “this isn’t as important as something we’ll see later, so I’m not gonna use my spell slots. So, sure you can try to do it martial. Go get ‘em champ.”

Being "insulted" because the party would rather use a lockpick on a door than one of their limited nukes sounds like an ego/mindset problem to me, not a systemic one. And I'd much rather the game not be designed around soothing a martial player's ego, especially when I'm willing to bet the vast majority of martial players at actual tables don't feel this way.



I think part of this comes down to what we see as the goal of the game system. To me, it’s when every character when played to near equal level of skill will have near equal contribution to success of the party in combat and out. Sure characters can have their strengths and weaknesses. But if the day is mechanically dictated by one player or a subgroup of players, I see that as a failing of the system.

This is the Avengers problem again. To you, the system fails unless Black Widow contributes equally in combat to Thor and Iron Man. To me, Black Widow may not match them in combat, but the group as a whole still loses/fails without her, so her contributions are vital by definition.


It's a matter of perspective. When the fighter can handle the mob such that the wizard doesn't have to cast Fireball I call that the fighter doing his job equally contributing. I call it teamwork when the wizard is to use a 3rd level spell slot anyway and buffs the barbarian with Haste then hides to keep concentration and take pot shots with Fire Bolt while the barbarian Hulk Smashes everything. At low level let the cleric concentrate on Protection From Evil and Good on the paladin and run away to hide while said paladin frolics among the intellect devours slicing away. The paladin saves his spell slot for a smite later. High five!

This.

[Xervous]

As I see it Ivory tower only comes about with options of differing potencies and obfuscated design goals.

If it is the case that the designers intend the fighter to have fewer opportunities to influence the scene, is it wrong for them to make that explicitly clear? Is it wrong for them to make no mention of this?

If it is the case that the designers intend for the GM to provide opportunities to account for the disparate capabilities of various classes, is it wrong for them to inform GMs of this critical function? Is it wrong for them to make no mention of this?

[Psyren]

If it is the case that the designers intend the fighter to have fewer opportunities to influence the scene, is it wrong for them to make that explicitly clear? Is it wrong for them to make no mention of this?

Speaking personally I wouldn't care if they did, but come on - spelling out (heh) that magic spells let you do more things than not having magic spells feels to me up there with saying that you can't use your sword to shoot arrows. Blatantly obvious in other words.

The PHB defines spells as follows:

"Spells can be versatile tools, weapons, or protective wards. They can deal damage or undo it, impose or remove conditions, drain life energy away, and restore life to the dead."

Would a line after that saying "some of these effects are difficult or impossible for characters to produce without spells" hurt anything, probably not, but would it be necessary to waste page space on it? Even the newest TTRPG player has to intuitively grasp that the wizard and cleric can do things the fighter can't.



If it is the case that the designers intend for the GM to provide opportunities to account for the disparate capabilities of various classes, is it wrong for them to inform GMs of this critical function? Is it wrong for them to make no mention of this?

They did do that. See DMG 6 (Know Your Players) and DMG 71 (Something For All Player Types) among others.

[Xervous]

They did do that. See DMG 6 (Know Your Players) and DMG 71 (Something For All Player Types) among others.

Not having access to my PDF at the moment I’ll guess that there is no explicit mention of specific classes, which is the integral part of my question. If there was such a line I’d probably have seen it quoted on these forums two dozen times over.

1. WotC knows they created a fighter whose mechanical features are insufficient for matching the opportunities that classes with more defined abilities get in absence of GM provided opportunities.

2. WotC makes it explicitly clear to GMs that certain classes are likely/potential outliers IF the game is run a certain, common way.

3. WorC provides guidance on addressing the issues outlined in 2, especially if the game style in 2 is contrary to WotCs assumed working play state.

To my knowledge they’ve only gotten to 1. Nothing about the game style in 2 is mentioned, leaving us with no foundation for 3 to exist on.

[strangebloke]

It's a matter of perspective. When the fighter can handle the mob such that the wizard doesn't have to cast Fireball I call that the fighter doing his job equally contributing. I call it teamwork when the wizard is to use a 3rd level spell slot anyway and buffs the barbarian with Haste then hides to keep concentration and take pot shots with Fire Bolt while the barbarian Hulk Smashes everything. At low level let the cleric concentrate on Protection From Evil and Good on the paladin and run away to hide while said paladin frolics among the intellect devours slicing away. The paladin saves his spell slot for a smite later. High five!

Yeah, you can cast it in a really negative light by saying "we can't afford to waste Mr. Cleric's special magic" but in practice its more like "Oh crap, I should have dropped a couple big spells here, this is going bad" or "You got this? I'm trying to save the big guns for Lassia, Mother of Darkness."

If you frame things hyper negatively of course its going to look bad.

Would a line after that saying "some of these effects are difficult or impossible for characters to produce without spells" hurt anything, probably not, but would it be necessary to waste page space on it? Even the newest TTRPG player has to intuitively grasp that the wizard and cleric can do things the fighter can't.

I think its implicit in the premise of a team game that everyone has things they're good at. Which yes, means that wizards and clerics can do things barbarians can't, but also should mean that noncasters have things they can do that nobody else can (at least not to the same extent)

[Waazraath]

D&D attempted to make magic revolve around spell slots, but that path ends with the entire day being based around how many slots your most powerful classes have left.

And the amusing but very insulting reality of “this isn’t as important as something we’ll see later, so I’m not gonna use my spell slots. So, sure you can try to do it martial. Go get ‘em champ.”

...

I think part of this comes down to what we see as the goal of the game system. To me, it’s when every character when played to near equal level of skill will have near equal contribution to success of the party in combat and out. Sure characters can have their strengths and weaknesses. But if the day is mechanically dictated by one player or a subgroup of players, I see that as a failing of the system.

In addition to what Pex and Psyren already replied (+1) my experience is that it's just as often the other way around: group of mooks, "ok mage plz fireball them away it's not worth our time nor any accidental hp we might lose dispatching these", "ok lets kick in the door or try to lock pick it instead of casting knock cause else Rob the Wizard is empty before we are halfway of this adventure" and "mhhh, end boss has legendary saves and is resistant to a lot of stuff ok mage plz after wasting 3 turns just buff the fighters plz and let them take care of it".

Sometimes a spell is the best solution, sometimes a more mundane approach (kick in the door) or almost supernatural skill.

Furthermore this confirms for me there is a problem when players dictate the pacing of the game. They shouldn't be able to do that. First cause it's the job of the DM, for the largest part, second because you imo have a social issue at your table when a long rest dependent charater nova's through his spell slots and then demanding the adventuring day is over (that's at least how I read your comment). That's artificially making a few classes stronger at the cost of (the fun of) others.

[Psyren]

I think its implicit in the premise of a team game that everyone has things they're good at. Which yes, means that wizards and clerics can do things barbarians can't, but also should mean that noncasters have things they can do that nobody else can (at least not to the same extent)

Yeah and they do. See that rogue? He can get through that lock without chanting audibly, burning a spell slot, or producing a loud "clank." Imagine that! See that Barbarian? He can stand toe-to-toe with a hill giant without concentrating on an armor or illusion spell, and getting hit once won't risk his AC dropping. And so on. The casters usually can't do that, or if they do, they end up diluting/delaying their builds in other key ways.


"mhhh, end boss has legendary saves and is resistant to a lot of stuff ok mage plz after wasting 3 turns just buff the fighters plz and let them take care of it".

This too. Often the most effective course of action for a caster is to hand the martials the spotlight with a few key buffs, debuffs or control effects, instead of trying to solve the encounter themselves. Everyone wins.


Furthermore this confirms for me there is a problem when players dictate the pacing of the game. They shouldn't be able to do that. First cause it's the job of the DM, for the largest part, second because you imo have a social issue at your table when a long rest dependent charater nova's through his spell slots and then demanding the adventuring day is over (that's at least how I read your comment). That's artificially making a few classes stronger at the cost of (the fun of) others.

Also this. Your casters are supposed to be judicious with their slots, especially in this edition where scaling cantrips exist, bonus spells/day have been removed, and consumables are much rarer.

The DMG recommends between six to eight medium or hard encounters a day (DMG 84). If you have much fewer than that, then your casters are going to be encouraged to nova, overshadowing the classes without daily resources more easily and then declaring a stop for the night. It's on you as the DM to discourage the nova approach and bring your adventuring days more in line with the assumed cadence of the game.

[strangebloke]

Yeah and they do. See that rogue? He can get through that lock without chanting audibly, burning a spell slot, or producing a loud "clank." Imagine that! See that Barbarian? He can stand toe-to-toe with a hill giant without concentrating on an armor or illusion spell, and getting hit once won't risk his AC dropping. And so on. The casters usually can't do that, or if they do, they end up diluting/delaying their builds in other key ways.

This is the story they tell you when you make your first level character but this isn't actually how the dynamics in play work out.

For example, you'll usually hear that "casters have power but less stamina." But that's not true. It's obvious that a druid spamming conjure animals is going to have more staying power than a fighter. The fighter will just run out of HP eventually, the druid definitely won't. Conversely the fighter has more power. The fighter can second wind and action surge and use 5 superiority dice in one turn and completely explode the boss, which is something druids really can't do (but other casters can.)

Ultimately though, the real thing to realize is that most of the power of rogues and fighters comes from features they get in early levels and that you can be almost as good as a rogue at skills with a single level of rogue. If you want to be tanky a single level of cleric can give you plate. Or hexblade! Or if you're a bard or warlock just take moderately armored! Getting lots of HP/THP/AC with a spell is trivial. A bladesinger is not sacrificing very much to be competitive with a fighter in the latter's niche.

I don't want to overstate the gap here, but it absolutely exists in late T3 and onward. Giving martials a few special buttons to press greatly alleviates the issue and makes them less reliant on caster friends and skills out of combat, as well as giving them extra customization.

[Psyren]

1) I'm completely okay with specific subclasses of martial getting more buttons to press in T3. But please recognize that not all martial players want that, they're fine with most of their subclass benefits being passive even if it means they're not the absolute strongest subclass option for that character. And don't tell those players to stop playing at level 10 either, when mathematically they can still kick CR 15-20 monsters in the posterior.

2) Conjure Animals has many limits that should be exploited at high levels, and as the PCs become higher level and more notorious then relying on a one-trick pony strategy becomes more dangerous. But
"dealing HP damage with (magic) weapons" is one that works on the vast majority of opponents all the way up.

[Wildstag]

It's a matter of perspective. When the fighter can handle the mob such that the wizard doesn't have to cast Fireball I call that the fighter doing his job equally contributing. I call it teamwork when the wizard is to use a 3rd level spell slot anyway and buffs the barbarian with Haste then hides to keep concentration and take pot shots with Fire Bolt while the barbarian Hulk Smashes everything. At low level let the cleric concentrate on Protection From Evil and Good on the paladin and run away to hide while said paladin frolics among the intellect devours slicing away. The paladin saves his spell slot for a smite later. High five!

I think that perspective represents the small minority that sees casters as martial-support, but the way I see it on this forum and online in general is that people prefer to see every class as hard carry (to borrow moba terms) and the martials lag behind in strength as a carry late game. There is definitely room for "caster as martial-support" as a gameplay style, and I think that mindset was the source of a lot of rage towards 4e's devs.

[strangebloke]

1) I'm completely okay with specific subclasses of martial getting more buttons to press in T3. But please recognize that not all martial players want that, they're fine with most of their subclass benefits being passive even if it means they're not the absolute strongest subclass option for that character. And don't tell those players to stop playing at level 10 either, when mathematically they can still kick CR 15-20 monsters in the posterior.

2) Conjure Animals has many limits that should be exploited at high levels, and as the PCs become higher level and more notorious then relying on a one-trick pony strategy becomes more dangerous. But
"dealing HP damage with (magic) weapons" is one that works on the vast majority of opponents all the way up.

1) Restricting the fun to subclasses makes them doomed to irrelevance via power creep. Some players don't want overtly magical abilities like summoning typhoons or whatever, but I've yet to meet with a martial fan who wouldn't like the ability to pick up a guy and throw them at another guy. This is why my implemenation features multiple options for out of combat at will abilities that don't feel like spells but still increase out of combat utility.

2) Conjure animals is an example. There are so many magic spells that allow casters to dominate in a long adventuring day if they want to. Polymorph, Tashas summons, Wildshape. Casters don't have any issue using magic weapons themselves, if anything they have an easier time accessing them.

[Yakk]

Restricting the fun to subclasses makes them doomed to irrelevance via power creep. Some players don't want overtly magical abilities like summoning typhoons or whatever, but I've yet to meet with a martial fan who wouldn't like the ability to pick up a guy and throw them at another guy. This is why my implemenation features multiple options for out of combat at will abilities that don't feel like spells but still increase out of combat utility.

Maybe don't use the existing subclasses to hang this on top of.

At the same time, you want thematic unity. One martial player who can do a "typhoon summoning kick" via something like a subclass works. But mixing and matching those abilities from a list, where some are overtly magical and others don't, runs into the unity problem.

...

As a framework, stealing from 4e, add a "Paragon" feature to martial classes in T3, right around where the tools full casters get become ridiculously world shaping.

You could start with some really simple cliche aspects.

Paragon of Strength
Paragon of Endurance
Paragon of Dexterity

Having over-the-top abilities that line up with strength/dexterity/constitution.

Paragon of the Dragon could reflect eating the heart of a dragon, having draconic ancestry, being chosen as a dragon's champion, or bathing in the blood of a dragon you slay.

Also, by pushing this back to T3 (or at least late T2), we accept the fact that low level spellcasters don't have a limiteless pool of world shaping magic. It also delays complexity.

...

At lower levels, I think a lot could be done by simply making some of the non-"I attack" options less costly.

Actions in Combat:

Tumble: You attempt to maneuver yourself to your advantage. Make a Dexterity(Acrobatics) check on a creature within 5' opposed by their Wisdom(Insight); on success, until the end of your next turn, the next time you attack them you have advantage, they cannot make opportunity attacks on you, and the next time a different creature than you attacks them they have advantage. When you take the Attack action, you may replace one of your attacks with a Tumble, or you may Tumble as an action.

Win More: On your turn, when you reduce a creature to 0 HP with a melee weapon attack or strike a critical hit with a melee weapon attack, you may make a Push, Grab or Tumble later on during this turn without using your action.

Toss: When you choose to end a grapple on your turn, you may Push the creature within using your action.

Line them up: When you miss with a ranged attack, you may repeat the attack on a creature the missed target offers cover to.

---

This emulates a whole pile of reasonable T1 or even T2 maneuvers without it being a bunch of tokens with recharges.

[Psyren]

1) Restricting the fun to subclasses makes them doomed to irrelevance via power creep. Some players don't want overtly magical abilities like summoning typhoons or whatever, but I've yet to meet with a martial fan who wouldn't like the ability to pick up a guy and throw them at another guy. This is why my implemenation features multiple options for out of combat at will abilities that don't feel like spells but still increase out of combat utility.

2) Conjure animals is an example. There are so many magic spells that allow casters to dominate in a long adventuring day if they want to. Polymorph, Tashas summons, Wildshape. Casters don't have any issue using magic weapons themselves, if anything they have an easier time accessing them.

1) You can already do that, it would be covered by the ad-hoc ability check / "uncovered rule" example from the DMG, like throwing a nearby brazier into somebody's face. All putting a mechanic around it does is make the GM say "without that specific feat/feature, you can't throw enemies no matter how strong you are" which we saw in 3.5/PF with Ki Throw, Awesome Blow and the like.

2a) All of which have drawbacks that can be exploited, both the general ones that apply to all spells and drawbacks to those specific ones built in like concentration or removing your ability to cast anything else.

2b) Accessing magic weapons doesn't mean casters get the most out of them, missing features like Extra Attack. They can multiclass to get those features but usually sacrifice casting to do so. Which brings us right back to, many times the best solution is to buff the martial and everyone wins.

[strangebloke]

1) You can already do that, it would be covered by the ad-hoc ability check / "uncovered rule" example from the DMG, like throwing a nearby brazier into somebody's face. All putting a mechanic around it does is make the GM say "without that specific feat/feature, you can't throw enemies no matter how strong you are" which we saw in 3.5/PF with Ki Throw, Awesome Blow and the like.

2a) All of which have drawbacks that can be exploited, both the general ones that apply to all spells and drawbacks to those specific ones built in like concentration or removing your ability to cast anything else.

2b) Accessing magic weapons doesn't mean casters get the most out of them, missing features like Extra Attack. They can multiclass to get those features but usually sacrifice casting to do so. Which brings us right back to, many times the best solution is to buff the martial and everyone wins.

1) ah yes, the "mother may I" solution to martials being boring. If we can agree every DM should allow such a thing, why shouldn't it be in the system? Why shouldn't players know that they can do such a thing? Why shouldn't DMs have guidance for how to arbitrate such a thing. Most players never even attempt to ask for such a thing because they don't want to be seen as powergamey and they don't want to be that guy. When I asked for it, my DM got really nervous and made up a rule that was to be frank completely worthless and wasted my action. I have one time had a player ask to do this, and I gave a pre-determined solution that he really enjoyed. Wouldn't it be nice if that fun option were accessible to everyone without all these pitfalls?

2a) Correct! they cannot cast! But if we're talking about a long adventuring day where they can't afford to expend spells, is "being unable to cast" actually a drawback? And this isn't a niche strategy, this is how druid was designed. Cast concentration spell, turn to bear, lumber into combat.

2b) Features like extra attack, armor proficiency, expertise, and fighting styles are not treated as expensive as casting. Imagine a fighter subclass that gave you third level spells at 6th level.

[Brookshw]

1) ah yes, the "mother may I" solution to martials being boring. If we can agree every DM should allow such a thing, why shouldn't it be in the system? Why shouldn't players know that they can do such a thing? Why shouldn't DMs have guidance for how to arbitrate such a thing. Most players never even attempt to ask for such a thing because they don't want to be seen as powergamey and they don't want to be that guy. When I asked for it, my DM got really nervous and made up a rule that was to be frank completely worthless and wasted my action. I have one time had a player ask to do this, and I gave a pre-determined solution that he really enjoyed. Wouldn't it be nice if that fun option were accessible to everyone without all these pitfalls?


Because you can't possibly write rules for every conceivable scenario? Also, at a certain point there's an (often unspoken) to rule of cool, or not to rule of cool, decision made at every table. That goes for martials and casters, both are free to propose unusual uses for abilities/spells/item/actions that don't fit the mold, and the issue gets resolved at the table level. It's strange to ask designers to predict what's best suited at that granular of a level, and if they do interject themselves too deep, it'll only be at the expense of a table that feels differently.

Kinda sad only one of your players has ever made a single attempt not to just press a button the book gives you, I love when my players go for crazy/unusual approaches and application and recommended encouraging it when you run games.

[Psyren]

1) ah yes, the "mother may I" solution to martials being boring.

If your martial is "boring" because it doesn't have a dedicated button for all the things that aren't in the rules, all I can really suggest is to recalibrate your expectations or wait for more material. (Or, again, head to the homebrew section.)



2a) Correct! they cannot cast! But if we're talking about a long adventuring day where they can't afford to expend spells, is "being unable to cast" actually a drawback? And this isn't a niche strategy, this is how druid was designed. Cast concentration spell, turn to bear, lumber into combat.

That's the design for one subclass, wild shape is useless in combat for the others outside a very narrow level band. And even for them there are drawbacks, sure they have a pile of hitpoints but once you lose concentration on that one spell you're maintaining it's gone and your AC most likely sucks (e.g. Brown Bear gets a whopping 11 and Deinonychus gets 13), so you'll definitely need all those HP. But you won't find me defending Moon Druid anyway - it needs a redesign, the scaling is horrible.


2b) Features like extra attack, armor proficiency, expertise, and fighting styles are not treated as expensive as casting. Imagine a fighter subclass that gave you third level spells at 6th level.

Yeah, and? They're also not subject to the restrictions of spellcasting. I don't need daily slots to use Extra Attack, or concentration to get higher AC from wearing armor.

[Talakeal]

Hey PhoenixPhyre, sorry if my last post came across as a bit intense.

Thinking more about it, the whole "game rules as setting physics" and "everything is magic" are old arguments, and not necessarily even related to one another. There is a more nuanced discussion to be had on that subject.


Currently sick, traveling, and without a working tablet, when that changes I have some more in depth responses to people in this thread that I have been meaning to post for a while.

[Yakk]

1) ah yes, the "mother may I" solution to martials being boring. If we can agree every DM should allow such a thing, why shouldn't it be in the system? Why shouldn't players know that they can do such a thing? Why shouldn't DMs have guidance for how to arbitrate such a thing. Most players never even attempt to ask for such a thing because they don't want to be seen as powergamey and they don't want to be that guy. When I asked for it, my DM got really nervous and made up a rule that was to be frank completely worthless and wasted my action. I have one time had a player ask to do this, and I gave a pre-determined solution that he really enjoyed. Wouldn't it be nice if that fun option were accessible to everyone without all these pitfalls?
Yes. In 4e there was "page 42", which provides guidance to a DM about "how good should an improvised action be".

It didn't say what the improvised action was. It just said "if a player does something neat, and it hurts a foe, and they are level 11, this amount of damage would make the action not-pointless".

[Psyren]

Yes. In 4e there was "page 42", which provides guidance to a DM about "how good should an improvised action be".

It didn't say what the improvised action was. It just said "if a player does something neat, and it hurts a foe, and they are level 11, this amount of damage would make the action not-pointless".

The brazier example in the 5e DMG was a relatively small bit of damage, but also imposed disadvantage on the victim's next attack. Something like that could be a lot more valuable than the actual damage dealt by the action. You could also briefly (1 round) impose a condition like blinded or stunned or prone depending on what/who you throw at them.

The point is that adjudicating those things on an ad-hoc basis makes sense.

[strangebloke]

Because you can't possibly write rules for every conceivable scenario? Also, at a certain point there's an (often unspoken) to rule of cool, or not to rule of cool, decision made at every table. That goes for martials and casters, both are free to propose unusual uses for abilities/spells/item/actions that don't fit the mold, and the issue gets resolved at the table level. It's strange to ask designers to predict what's best suited at that granular of a level, and if they do interject themselves too deep, it'll only be at the expense of a table that feels differently.

Kinda sad only one of your players has ever made a single attempt not to just press a button the book gives you, I love when my players go for crazy/unusual approaches and application and recommended encouraging it when you run games.


Yes. In 4e there was "page 42", which provides guidance to a DM about "how good should an improvised action be".

It didn't say what the improvised action was. It just said "if a player does something neat, and it hurts a foe, and they are level 11, this amount of damage would make the action not-pointless".

Oh tbc I'm fine with that, I'm just saying that "There's a blurb in the text that says 'do what you want' so that thing you're talking about is covered by the system" is bad argument.


If your martial is "boring" because it doesn't have a dedicated button for all the things that aren't in the rules, all I can really suggest is to recalibrate your expectations or wait for more material. (Or, again, head to the homebrew section.)

I'm in the homebrew section. I have a thread there right now that was a product of the discussions of this thread, which was created to get input about what people would want from such a system. Why are you so opposed to martials getting explicitly defined abilities? Do you play noncasters? Would you not want to play them if the DM gave them more buttons? Would you not want to play a caster in a campaign where the noncasters got more buttons?

That's the design for one subclass, wild shape is useless in combat for the others outside a very narrow level band. And even for them there are drawbacks, sure they have a pile of hitpoints but once you lose concentration on that one spell you're maintaining it's gone and your AC most likely sucks (e.g. Brown Bear gets a whopping 11 and Deinonychus gets 13), so you'll definitely need all those HP. But you won't find me defending Moon Druid anyway - it needs a redesign, the scaling is horrible.

Normal wildshape easily doubles or triples your HP even on a basic druid and you can still deal damage on par with a cantrip depending on form. And yes, the moon druid gives even more fuel than most, but all the other subclasses give you short rest powers as well. Druids absolutely have fuel for days. Have you ever seen a druid run out of spell slots outside of T1? How often do they run out of HP?

The idea that all martials work like rogues and benefit from long adventuring days in an analysis is a meme. Barbarians honestly are one of the worst classes in long adventuring days, particularly at low level, because they are bad without rage and only get 2-3 couple rages a day.


Yeah, and? They're also not subject to the restrictions of spellcasting. I don't need daily slots to use Extra Attack, or concentration to get higher AC from wearing armor.

Clerics and Druids have good default AC and decent offensive options without spell slots. All the classes that get light armor can get 19 AC via subclass or a single half feat. There are as many caster classes as noncaster classes that get extra attack, and there are three more caster classes that can get extra attack from a subclass that also gives lots of other bonuses. Anyone can get good AC and/or expertise from a one level dip. Rogues have bad AC and middling HP, monks are the same until high level, Barbarians have bad defenses if they're not raging. As the game goes on, class features get weaker and ASIs have fewer potential uses so picking up moderately armored or multiclassing for a single level becomes more attractive, so this 'niche' insofar as it exists, is eroded further.

[Yakk]

The brazier example in the 5e DMG was a relatively small bit of damage, but also imposed disadvantage on the victim's next attack. Something like that could be a lot more valuable than the actual damage dealt by the action. You could also briefly (1 round) impose a condition like blinded or stunned or prone depending on what/who you throw at them.

The point is that adjudicating those things on an ad-hoc basis makes sense.
So, doing a small amount of damage and giving disadvantage on the next attack at level 1 is a reasonable thing for an action to do.

A level 20 PC doing a small amount of damage and giving disadvantage on the next attack is a horrible use of an action.

Vicious mockery, which goes from a small amount of damage to a slightly less small amount of damage, is an example of that. It, at least, scales *a tiny bit*.

Page 42 had multiple columns. It had low/medium/high/limited damage, it had rules for what you should do for abilities that hit more than one foe.

The equivalent in 5e might look like:

T1: Low: 1d4 Medium: 1d12 High: 3d6 Limited: 3d10
T2: Low: 1d8 Medium: 3d6 High: 4d6 Limited: 4d10
T3: Low: 1d12 Medium: 2d12 High: 4d8 Limited: 4d12
T4: Low: 2d8 Medium: 6d6 High: 5d10 Limited: 10d8

+modifier of trigginer stat, where the T is the tier-level of the danger.

Low is appropriate for something that either shouldn't be that effective, or has a large non-damage impact.
Medium is appropriate for something that should do a decent amount of damage, and requires sacrificing an attack to do.
High is something that should do a relatively painful amount of damage. PCs will usually be happy to give up an attack to do only this amount of damage.
Limited is something that could be done at most once in a situation, and should be extremely painful. PCs may even be happy to give up an entire action to do this.

Swapping an attack for a Medium damage expression should be a reasonable thing to do.

A level 11 Paladin does 16 damage per swing (plus weapon enchantment); a Medium damage expression at level 11 is about 18 damage.

Low is just a nominal amount of damage. Note that in T1, disadvantage one one attack is a reasonably strong debuff; in T2 or T3, doing so on one target is no longer as important.

And an AOE version might just cut damage by 25% to 33%.

You could also add in guidance about DCs. Roughly how hard should, I dunno, be knocking over a tier-3 danger level lighting emitter gem to cause an explosion? It will depend on if the system is hardened against damage.

But without this, you'll run into the problem that asking a DM to do something that could be damaging instead of just "spam attack" can easily be a waste of an action. When your standard attack routine is doing 40 damage, and you think up something creative, your DM asks for 2 skill checks with high DCs, and you do 10 damage... it gets discouraging fast.

Meanwhile, on the DM side, to do this right you are responsible for knowing on the fly what the size of damage would be a good deal to your PC and what kind of DC would be reasonable to do it.

Note that I made this tier-specific, and made it the tier of the *dangerous environment*, not the PC or monsters. A brazier in a castle is a Tier 1 kind of dangerous environmental effect, even if you are fighting a demigod.

[Psyren]

A level 20 PC doing a small amount of damage and giving disadvantage on the next attack is a horrible use of an action.


Before you move that goalpost any further, I didn't say anything about martials throwing braziers - or even other monsters - at level 20.



I'm in the homebrew section. I have a thread there right now that was a product of the discussions of this thread, which was created to get input about what people would want from such a system. Why are you so opposed to martials getting explicitly defined abilities? Do you play noncasters? Would you not want to play them if the DM gave them more buttons? Would you not want to play a caster in a campaign where the noncasters got more buttons?

As a matter of fact I do. I love Monks (warts and all - which we helped by buffing their ki regardless of subclass), Barbarians, and certain subclasses of Fighter and Rogue like the Soulknife and Echo Knight.



Normal wildshape easily doubles or triples your HP even on a basic druid and you can still cast spells like primal savagery. And yes, the moon druid gives even more fuel than most, but all the other subclasses give you short rest powers as well. Druids absolutely have fuel for days. Have you ever seen a druid run out of spell slots outside of T1? How often do they run out of HP?

I've definitely see them run out of spell slots. If your casters never do in T2 and T3 that's quite bluntly a DM skill issue.

I'll also point out that the goal isn't necessarily to make them run dry of everything but cantrips either; the goal is to make them want to throw out cantrips for a few rounds to conserve ammunition, or buff a martial with their concentration instead of themselves so they can hang back from the things that would break that concentration and waste the precious spell slot. While they are doing these things, the martial is easily able to get and keep the spotlight. Again though, this relies on DM skill and proper encounter design and density.



The idea that all martials work like rogues and benefit from long adventuring days in an analysis is a meme. Barbarians honestly are one of the worst classes in long adventuring days, particularly at low level, because they are bad without rage and only get 2-3 couple rages a day.

Worse than with rage, sure, but "bad" is an overstatement. They still get things like Extra Attack, Fast Movement and Reckless Attack, and that's just level 5. If your barbarian is sitting on the ground weeping because they're missing out on a whopping +2 damage... well, I keep coming back to "skill issue" but that's the diagnosis.


Clerics and Druids have good default AC and decent offensive options without spell slots. All the classes that get light armor can get 19 AC via subclass or a single half feat. There are as many caster classes as noncaster classes that get extra attack, and there are three more caster classes that can get extra attack from a subclass that also gives lots of other bonuses. Anyone can get good AC and/or expertise from a one level dip. Rogues have bad AC and middling HP, monks are the same until high level, Barbarians have bad defenses if they're not raging. As the game goes on, class features get weaker and ASIs have fewer potential uses so picking up moderately armored or multiclassing for a single level becomes more attractive, so this 'niche' insofar as it exists, is eroded further.

I find it amusing that you think spell-less clerics have such a great chassis and rage-less barbarians don't.

You're not intended to rage every combat and you definitely don't need to. Just like casters aren't intended to cast their max-level spells every round.

[Pex]

Because you can't possibly write rules for every conceivable scenario? Also, at a certain point there's an (often unspoken) to rule of cool, or not to rule of cool, decision made at every table. That goes for martials and casters, both are free to propose unusual uses for abilities/spells/item/actions that don't fit the mold, and the issue gets resolved at the table level. It's strange to ask designers to predict what's best suited at that granular of a level, and if they do interject themselves too deep, it'll only be at the expense of a table that feels differently.

Kinda sad only one of your players has ever made a single attempt not to just press a button the book gives you, I love when my players go for crazy/unusual approaches and application and recommended encouraging it when you run games.

But they don't have to write rules for every conceivable scenario. All they need to do is provide examples to show what can be done. They can think of the more common likely ideas and use them as benchmarks for players and DMs to extrapolate. It's already the case of people trying to do more with spells than what they say. Some people don't like that because it means more power for spellcasters while some people do like it for player ingenuity. Going with the latter philosophy show what can be done officially for warriors and players will be think outside the box for more. It's already being done now with people asking to use Acrobatics to avoid opportunity attacks or trying to figure out how to make Athletics work to jump more than your Strength score. Having something official, with examples and DCs as appropriate, instead of just telling the DM to wing it would go a long way,




Worse than with rage, sure, but "bad" is an overstatement. They still get things like Extra Attack, Fast Movement and Reckless Attack, and that's just level 5. If your barbarian is sitting on the ground weeping because they're missing out on a whopping +2 damage... well, I keep coming back to "skill issue" but that's the diagnosis.



To be fair missing out on +2 damage is not the problem when not raging. The problem is not getting the juicy stuff barbarians get while raging, such as resistance to damage, immune to afflictions, extra dice of damage that's significantly more than +2, etc. I never ran out of rages when I played a barbarian, but then we weren't having 6-8 encounter days. I never resented the spellcasters doing their stuff.

[Brookshw]

But they don't have to write rules for every conceivable scenario. All they need to do is provide examples to show what can be done. They can think of the more common likely ideas and use them as benchmarks for players and DMs to extrapolate. It's already the case of people trying to do more with spells than what they say. Some people don't like that because it means more power for spellcasters while some people do like it for player ingenuity. Going with the latter philosophy show what can be done officially for warriors and players will be think outside the box for more. It's already being done now with people asking to use Acrobatics to avoid opportunity attacks or trying to figure out how to make Athletics work to jump more than your Strength score. Having something official, with examples and DCs as appropriate, instead of just telling the DM to wing it would go a long way,

They already provide examples of what skills can do. As to providing DCs, I think you and I have very different opinions on the value when 3e did it. For my experience, it added little to no clarity on what can be done, and left assigning a DC to guess work ,just as it is now, if there wasn't an almost exact match (e.g., is driving a wagon up on two wheel to pass over the child's in the middle of a chase as hard as tracking something in the moonlight after a light snow? No idea. What if the wagon's rickety, is being bumped by summoned monsters, cobblestone road? Search me. Is it even do-able? Who knows.)

[Amechra]

1) ah yes, the "mother may I" solution to martials being boring. If we can agree every DM should allow such a thing, why shouldn't it be in the system? Why shouldn't players know that they can do such a thing? Why shouldn't DMs have guidance for how to arbitrate such a thing. Most players never even attempt to ask for such a thing because they don't want to be seen as powergamey and they don't want to be that guy. When I asked for it, my DM got really nervous and made up a rule that was to be frank completely worthless and wasted my action. I have one time had a player ask to do this, and I gave a pre-determined solution that he really enjoyed. Wouldn't it be nice if that fun option were accessible to everyone without all these pitfalls?

Going off other games that use this approach successfully, this is mostly 5e being terrible at giving you guidance for doing stuff outside of the explicit rules, and hides the fact that you're "allowed" to do that in combat in a small box on page 193.

It also doesn't help that D&D's conditions tend to be very variable in terms of how powerful they are, so you can't just say something like "improvised actions can inflict an appropriate condition with a successful ability contest" or whatever.

[strangebloke]

Going off other games that use this approach successfully, this is mostly 5e being terrible at giving you guidance for doing stuff outside of the explicit rules, and hides the fact that you're "allowed" to do that in combat in a small box on page 193.

It also doesn't help that D&D's conditions tend to be very variable in terms of how powerful they are, so you can't just say something like "improvised actions can inflict an appropriate condition with a successful ability contest" or whatever.

It's buried in the DMG, but beyond that there's a problem of a conflict between explicit and implicit abilities. For example, you might think, reading mage hand's description, that you could use it to pick a lock at range. But mage hand legerdmain says that it grants the ability to pick locks with mage hand. Which means that the implicit use of mage hand... isn't real? Because the explicit text of legerdmain implies it isn't?

Overall this creates a pattern of "if its not explicit you can't do it." And really, I'm at peace with that. It's how DND operates. People trying to argue for what they see as 'logical implications' of their abilities are tiresome in a system that has as many weird and wild abilities as DND does and things get way out of control if you let people do this with spellcasting in particular.

Now, obviously this is how Ability Checks and the Improvised Actions blurb work. But the general cultural assumption prevails, and what guidance exists is buried in the DMG where none of my players will ever see it anyway. I'm chill with improvised actions. But they're never ever happening at my table because players don't want to be power gamers, they want to stick to their explicitly enumerated powers. Even if my players want to throw someone across the room and trust that I won't make it a waste of their action... well, there's social pressure to not be a powergamer, not to waste everyone's time trying to give yourself new abilities. It's not worth it.

So where does that leave me? I just tell them "You can improvise something"? They won't. Not my players anyway, not very often. They'd much rather stick to boring options than to be seen as powergamers. So what I do instead is I make explicit abilities that are balanced and scaled appropriately and publish them in the (vain) hope that it will help other people who are having similar problems.

[Pex]

They already provide examples of what skills can do. As to providing DCs, I think you and I have very different opinions on the value when 3e did it. For my experience, it added little to no clarity on what can be done, and left assigning a DC to guess work ,just as it is now, if there wasn't an almost exact match (e.g., is driving a wagon up on two wheel to pass over the child's in the middle of a chase as hard as tracking something in the moonlight after a light snow? No idea. What if the wagon's rickety, is being bumped by summoned monsters, cobblestone road? Search me. Is it even do-able? Who knows.)

That's where DM adjudication, "rulings", come in. That is when it's the DM's job to figure it out. If the DM can't figure it out from benchmarks how do you expect the DM to figure it out when there no guidelines at all? 3E helps further where depending on the table it will give plus or minus numbers to apply to the DC. If that doesn't help there's the universal "DM's best friend" of +2 or -2 to apply to an example DC. In 5E terms the DM would still have benchmarks to help pick a DC and then other conditions would mean apply Advantage or Disadvantage to the roll.

In 3E the DC to climb a tree is 15. Is it for every tree? If the DM wants, but it's not unreasonable to think that's for the oak and similarly looking trees. A palm tree could be harder. However, a climber could wrap his arms, so despite no branches at the bottom and rough bark it's not quite the same as a dungeon wall which is DC 20. What to do? DM's best friend. DC 17. In 5E now? It's Mother May I. One game my 10 ST not proficient in Athletics monk couldn't climb a tree to save his life, DC 20. I need to roll and only a Natural 20 succeeds. He's George of the Jungle. Another game another DM my 10 ST not proficient in Athletics warlock could climb a tree just because he wanted to. DC Yes, no roll needed. He's Tarzan. Neither DM was playing the game wrong. They just disagreed on the difficulty of climbing a tree. Now imagine the problem when a warrior player wants to do something more fantastic such as Acrobatics to avoid AoO or Athletics to jump over a 25 ft wide chasm or Knowledge Arcana to cut through a Wall of Force or perhaps know how deep to dig underneath one and make a tunnel.

[OldTrees1]

Going off other games that use this approach successfully, this is mostly 5e being terrible at giving you guidance for doing stuff outside of the explicit rules, and hides the fact that you're "allowed" to do that in combat in a small box on page 193.

It also doesn't help that D&D's conditions tend to be very variable in terms of how powerful they are, so you can't just say something like "improvised actions can inflict an appropriate condition with a successful ability contest" or whatever.

The GM is the players' eyes into the world. Likewise the GM is the players' eyes into the implicit abilities.

I do not know if a strong Barbarian can smash an enemy and try to send that enemy flying as part of their attacks. So I suspect the enemy won't go flying.

I would like to learn from your experience with those other games:

Let's pretend you are the GM. Can a Barbarian do that? How far? Is there a check? What DC?

Let's pretend you are the game developer. What advice do you give, where, and to whom, so the player knows the answer before they ask?

[Pex]

It's buried in the DMG, but beyond that there's a problem of a conflict between explicit and implicit abilities. For example, you might think, reading mage hand's description, that you could use it to pick a lock at range. But mage hand legerdmain says that it grants the ability to pick locks with mage hand. Which means that the implicit use of mage hand... isn't real? Because the explicit text of legerdmain implies it isn't?

Overall this creates a pattern of "if its not explicit you can't do it." And really, I'm at peace with that. It's how DND operates. People trying to argue for what they see as 'logical implications' of their abilities are tiresome in a system that has as many weird and wild abilities as DND does and things get way out of control if you let people do this with spellcasting in particular.

Now, obviously this is how Ability Checks and the Improvised Actions blurb work. But the general cultural assumption prevails, and what guidance exists is buried in the DMG where none of my players will ever see it anyway. I'm chill with improvised actions. But they're never ever happening at my table because players don't want to be power gamers, they want to stick to their explicitly enumerated powers. Even if my players want to throw someone across the room and trust that I won't make it a waste of their action... well, there's social pressure to not be a powergamer, not to waste everyone's time trying to give yourself new abilities. It's not worth it.

So where does that leave me? I just tell them "You can improvise something"? They won't. Not my players anyway, not very often. They'd much rather stick to boring options than to be seen as powergamers. So what I do instead is I make explicit abilities that are balanced and scaled appropriately and publish the (vain) hope that it will help other people who are having similar problems.

That's an interesting other side of the coin. Usually it's the DM who doesn't like the improvising because he's afraid it would set precedent. It's the DM worried about something not explicitly allowed by the rules to be too powerful, so the DC is No or Rule of Cool Just This Once.

[strangebloke]

The GM is the players' eyes into the world. Likewise the GM is the players' eyes into the implicit abilities.

I do not know if a strong Barbarian can smash an enemy and try to send that enemy flying as part of their attacks. So I suspect the enemy won't go flying.

I would like to learn from your experience with those other games:

Let's pretend you are the GM. Can a Barbarian do that? How far? Is there a check? What DC?

Let's pretend you are the game developer. What advice do you give, where, and to whom, so the player knows the answer before they ask?

Not Amechra, but I have two examples

One is FATE. In FATE, a player can describe any action and the player and GM decide mutually which skill would be appropriate. Obviously there's an element of gaming your descriptions to match the skills you're good in but generally that's not too restrictive. Then the player can decide whether one of their traits applies to the check in a positive fashion. So if the player had written "not tired of being nice, still kind of wants to go ape****" as one of their traits, they could spend one of their 'fate' points and add a bonus to the check. You can stack any number of traits as long as they can be argued to apply, but of course you'll run out of fate points.

The GM can also apply your traits to checks you make in a negative fashion, something like "you have the 'greedy' trait, so I will just say you fail this check because you're distracted by money." If the player goes along with it, they get a fate point back. If they don't go along with it, they have to pay a fate point.

So its weird. In a sense you're incentivized to give yourself bad traits and go along with forced fails because it lets you build up loads of points for the climax.

What's really fun is you can extend FATE to pretty much any character concept and I do mean any. Come up with a skill list that's relevant to kaiju, slap on some traits, and suddenly you're a pack of monsters trashing tokyo.

The second is Amber. In Amber, everyone's a demigod and the game is built around the race for the throne. Stats are auctioned off with points. Whoever bid the most for strength can automatically win any direct confrontation against any other PC. The second highest bidder can beat everyone who bid lower than the number one and so on. Whoever bid the most for war can win any confrontation through proxy. Whoever bid the most for Influence can win any confrontation through indirect means.

At the end of the game, everyone alive is awarded points based on the objectives they achieved. Some of these objectives were open and available to everyone...

But every player also had unique objectives that were secret. Also for the skills, only the top bidders are known. You know who the top Strength guy is but not who the fourth strength guy is. So the game is this weird dance of attempted alliances and betrayals and lies. It makes for a very fun game if you've got a good crew. You can narrate your actions any way you like because they don't matter. If you win you can win any way you like and ultimately you're a demigod.


That's an interesting other side of the coin. Usually it's the DM who doesn't like the improvising because he's afraid it would set precedent. It's the DM worried about something not explicitly allowed by the rules to be too powerful, so the DC is No or Rule of Cool Just This Once.

One flows into the other. The DM doesn't want to set bad precedent so they get stressed and overcompensate. The players don't want to stress the DM, or fear its going to be pointless to ask so they just don't. When a DM hasn't improvised in a while because of the silent law against using abilities for off-brand things, they get comfortable, and become all the more unprepared when something like that does come up, which makes them tighten up even more.

Whereas, if you're used to improvising you're just like "nah, I just can do this and I won't be a jerk about it."

[Brookshw]

That's where DM adjudication, "rulings", come in. That is when it's the DM's job to figure it out. Agreed.


If the DM can't figure it out from benchmarks how do you expect the DM to figure it out when there no guidelines at all? Those exist, they're on pg 174 of the PHB, though they're not very granular (which I believe is your concern).


They have 3E helps further where depending on the table it will give plus or minus numbers to apply to the DC. Nope, not with you there. 3e was just as bad at this, a plus or minus didn't help, too many apples and oranges to compare that just left DM's having to use their best judgement.


In 3E the DC to climb a tree is 15. Is it for every tree? If the DM wants, but it's not unreasonable to think that's for the oak and similarly looking trees. A palm tree could be harder. However, a climber could wrap his arms, so despite no branches at the bottom and rough bark it's not quite the same as a dungeon wall which is DC 20. Is it? Which dungeon wall? Poorly mortared? Rough hewn? Why wasn't wrapping arms around an oak tree an option as well to determine the DC on that one? What if the tree's wet? What if it's a bone tree from the Dry Lands or unnaturally brittle? We're back in the guessing game trying to determine how to establish a baseline and relying upon our judgement. I get where you're coming from, but do not see 3e as having really offered all that much.


Now imagine the problem when a warrior player wants to do something more fantastic such as Acrobatics to avoid AoO or Athletics to jump over a 25 ft wide chasm or Knowledge Arcana to cut through a Wall of Force or perhaps know how deep to dig underneath one and make a tunnel. You and I diverge on a few of those, I'm not a fan of using a skill check to invalidate or go around existing rules; to Strange's point, once a rule function is bounded most people in my experience will stay within those bounds and I'm fine with that, though they shouldn't feel constrained and unable to consider or attempt approaches/actions which aren't already addressed within the scope of the rules (simultaneously, the DM should be giving them a heads up how they'll handle the attempt before anyone wastes their action/turn/whatever).

[Pex]

Is it? Which dungeon wall? Poorly mortared? Rough hewn? Why wasn't wrapping arms around an oak tree an option as well to determine the DC on that one? What if the tree's wet? What if it's a bone tree from the Dry Lands or unnaturally brittle? We're back in the guessing game trying to determine how to establish a baseline and relying upon our judgement. I get where you're coming from, but do not see 3e as having really offered all that much.



Which dungeon wall? A typical dungeon wall, generic, it just is, a run of the mill nothing special dungeon wall. DC 20 per climb skill 3E PHB page 65

If it's rough hewn, then it's harder, like a rock or brick wall, DC 25 per climb skill 3E PHB page 65

Climb skill only says trees are DC 15 to climb, DM fiat, a ruling, made a difference between oak, which has low thick branches a person can easily reach and a palm tree which has no branches until the very top. DM made a ruling as per his prerogative, so he chooses harder than a normal tree and uses DM's best friend to add +2 to the DC.

Tree is wet? Add +5 to the DC for being slippery, as per the climb skill 3E PHB page 65

Tree is bone, easier grip? -5 to the DC if DM thinks it's as easier as if bracing against the corner of two walls to climb per climb skill 3E PHB page 65. If not that easy or really aren't sure use DM's best friend of -2 to the DC.

If the tree is so brittle it would collapse under weight then the tree collapses, autofail. If the character is trained (i. e. has at least one rank) in Knowledge Nature the DM could be generous and give him a check on that to notice it is brittle before he climbs. DM choice to let him roll or consider his Take 10 result. DM needs to decide if it's easy, basic, or hard to notice it is so brittle. That has to be a DM call. DC 10, 15, 20 respectively per knowledge skill 3E PHB page 71.

[Psyren]

Going off other games that use this approach successfully, this is mostly 5e being terrible at giving you guidance for doing stuff outside of the explicit rules, and hides the fact that you're "allowed" to do that in combat in a small box on page 193.

It also doesn't help that D&D's conditions tend to be very variable in terms of how powerful they are, so you can't just say something like "improvised actions can inflict an appropriate condition with a successful ability contest" or whatever.

5e might not be as good at this as more narrative games, but it's done the best so far of any D&D edition. In 3.5 the most we got was "consider a +2 circumstance bonus maybe?" Whereas 5e actually encourages you to think outside the handbook when describing actions the designers didn't think about.

And for that matter - why can't you say "improvised actions can inflict an appropriate condition?" The GM sets the DC after all, so you can index the condition(s)) inflicted to how impressive the stunt was quite easily. "It was a DC 20 to knock him out, but you got an 18 total, let's say you stunned him for 1 round instead," e.g.

[Brookshw]

Which dungeon wall? A typical dungeon wall, generic, it just is, a run of the mill nothing special dungeon wall. DC 20 per climb skill 3E PHB page 65

If it's rough hewn, then it's harder, like a rock or brick wall, DC 25 per climb skill 3E PHB page 65

Climb skill only says trees are DC 15 to climb, DM fiat, a ruling, made a difference between oak, which has low thick branches a person can easily reach and a palm tree which has no branches until the very top. DM made a ruling as per his prerogative, so he chooses harder than a normal tree and uses DM's best friend to add +2 to the DC.

Tree is wet? Add +5 to the DC for being slippery, as per the climb skill 3E PHB page 65

Tree is bone, easier grip? -5 to the DC if DM thinks it's as easier as if bracing against the corner of two walls to climb per climb skill 3E PHB page 65. If not that easy or really aren't sure use DM's best friend of -2 to the DC.

If the tree is so brittle it would collapse under weight then the tree collapses, autofail. If the character is trained (i. e. has at least one rank) in Knowledge Nature the DM could be generous and give him a check on that to notice it is brittle before he climbs. DM choice to let him roll or consider his Take 10 result. DM needs to decide if it's easy, basic, or hard to notice it is so brittle. That has to be a DM call. DC 10, 15, 20 respectively per knowledge skill 3E PHB page 71.

So, that's starting at a base 15, up through maybe a 25, with possible +/-5 depending. That's still leaving the DM to have to decide on quite a bit to climb this palm tree and figure out the DC. I don't see how that's any better.


If the tree is so brittle it would collapse under weight then the tree collapses, autofail. If the character is trained (i. e. has at least one rank) in Knowledge Nature the DM could be generous and give him a check on that to notice it is brittle before he climbs. DM choice to let him roll or consider his Take 10 result. DM needs to decide if it's easy, basic, or hard to notice it is so brittle. That has to be a DM call. DC 10, 15, 20 respectively per knowledge skill 3E PHB page 71. So all things a DM needs to decide with little guidance on where to place the DC, and if its even possible in the first place. Again, I don't see how that's any better.

And climbing is one of the easier ones to sort through in 3.5...

[strangebloke]

Can we not do the skill checks boogaloo again Pex?

The real problem with the skill check system is that there are no things impossible at low levels that can be done consistently at mid-to-high levels, so there's no manner in which powerful skill uses can be 'unlocked.' You can't say "with a DC 30 athletics you rip open a force cage" because PCs can do that at level one with a bit of luck (expertise + guidance + BI + help) and that's silly. So when getting 30 is pretty doable on average, there's nothing up there that is that exciting despite your large investment. Even if you put in suggested DCs for specific tasks this bit would remain.

It's one of the limits of bounded accuracy.

[Xervous]

I’m getting a bit of dejavu posting this (again?) D&Ds noncommittal stance on setting and expectations feels like it gets in the way of declaring actions beyond the rules as a player. With no starting reference point you have to learn the table/GM. And the system doesn’t directly address that details and relevant tropes need outlining. I hear we’re playing Shadowrun(if not the system, even just the setting), it’s pink mohawk street level play. Even if I knew nothing about Shadowrun and cyberpunk to begin with I’ve just been given easily sourced reference points. “It’s like this book or that movie or that game” gets me to the ballpark of capabilities far faster than playing 1d20 questions with the GM. That’s not to say 1d20 questions is bad, but it can be frustrating for players as there is frequently no guiding feedback on why proposed actions are denied.

“I want to shoot lasers from my eyes”

D&D: “Well there’s magic for that but you aren’t a caster. Might find an item down the road.”

Shadowrun: “That’s some nasty ‘ware, ain’t going to be cheap and certainly isn’t legal. But you know that’s in/beyond your budget and good/bad for the theme of the campaign”

Paranoia: “mutant power? Experimental R&D implant? Go have fun, you’ll probably kill a few clones.”

Using FATE for WW2 fighter pilot drama: “uh hello, that doesn’t fit.”

It’s the tricky thing with D&D. People claim it’s a versatile system but it’s got all these baked in assumptions. It doesn’t hold much of them up as default assumptions even though the Devs were working with those assumptions. There’s so many people fooled into thinking “let’s play D&D” is anywhere near sufficient explanation for what to expect. Most of the time it’s no issue, but eventually one blind man is going to talk to another blind man about the elephant that he’s feeling.

[Yakk]

Before you move that goalpost any further, I didn't say anything about martials throwing braziers - or even other monsters - at level 20.
You gave it as an example in response to page 42, which is all about how much damage you should do at a given level in an improvised action in order for it not to suck for PCs.

This is when I was talking about the problem that PCs doing improvised actions is often a bad idea, because DMs in practice seem to find it hard to make the improvised action worth doing. Page 42 was (is) a tool to ensure that (at least the damage) impact of the action is in-line with other things the PC could be doing.