Random Idea for Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizard future solution [Archive]

MadBear

2022-02-16, 04:16 PM

Angelalex242

2022-02-16, 04:21 PM

Treat Rangers as full martials in this case...because Rangers categorically /suck!/

Amnestic

2022-02-16, 04:26 PM

Treat Rangers as full martials in this case...because Rangers categorically /suck!/

Rangers post-Tasha's are absolutely fine in tier 1+2, they can drop off a bit in tier 3 (subclass/build varies a bit here) and their tier 4 class features are not good, but since the vast majority of games seem to be played in tier 1/2, I disagree with them sucking.

I should probably post my actual 'fix' for the quadratic/linear problem: Make all full casters half casters and add real (sub)class features to compensate. Or simply don't play into tier 3/4, like most groups don't.
My Redux Sorcerer (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/-LfWZyiMRfAq) based upon the old playtest materials was created with the half-caster concept in mind. It certainly can be done. It's effort, mind you, but it's definitely doable.

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-16, 04:30 PM

Overview:
So I was thinking of how to help balance out a wish casting wizard and 4 attacks per round fighter in Tier 3/4 play. Make wish only available on items or from powerful beings. Like in the original game.
Return Wizards to d4 hit dice. Same with sorcerers.

(I find your problem statement coherent, so let's head toward ...

My solution is to take the magic item system and rework it in the following way:

- Full Casters only have 1 attunement slot. The fluff reason can simply be that the infusion of magic that they're using prevents them from having more then this.
- Half Casters get to have 2 attunement slots
- Full martials add extra attunement slots at various levels (10, 15, 20 maybe).
- More magic items that add to other dimensions of play other then just combat
- Less magic items that are pure stat buffs
- More magic items that add new things for a character to do on their turn.
Given my experience on radio freq spectrum interference in the Navy, I am on board with this conceptually. (The devil is in the details, though).

The reason I think something like this could help, would simply be that in most high fantasy, if a character isn't a mage/wizard/etc. they generally compensate with magic items that help them overcome obstacles. So now a level 20 fighter will have 6 powerful magic items compared to the wizards 1 item. Obviously, if the DM just gives the fighter only magic items that directly increase their power in combat and nothing else, this could be a balance issue. However, if these items instead of being raw increase in power, increase flexibility in how the character chooses to act, this can give them new interesting options in/out of combat. So in theory this solution helps propel characters to match typical fantasy tropes without martials being left in the dust, while the casters get overwhelmingly powerful by 20th level. At the conceptual level, I am totally with you. The devil is in the details, and I'll posit this: No Multiclassing or this is dead in the water.

This type of system also has the advantage of encouraging martials to want to dungeon delve for gear because that directly makes them better, while the wizard wants to delve because that's how they find more spells which in turn encourages both players to look towards the same solution to different wants. The only unfixable issue is how multiclassing currently works (or doesn't). Remove that and you are half way there.

MadBear

2022-02-16, 04:56 PM

The devil is in the details, and I'll posit this: No Multiclassing or this is dead in the water.
The only unfixable issue is how multiclassing currently works (or doesn't). Remove that and you are half way there.

You're 100% correct that the devil is in the details. This is me posting what is essentially a first draft to see if the idea has the legs to be worth continuing tinkering with or if it's dead in the water.

You already caught a potential sticking point in how multiclassing works with this. My gut for the problem would be that you get the lower number of attunement slots and you only get more if you make it to the levels that add extra. So in this case a level 15 fighter/5 wizard would have 3 attunement slots (1 for wizard, 1 for level 10 fighter, 1 for level 15 fighter) compared to a level 20 fighter with 6, or a level 20 wizard with 1. This would then making dipping martials not possible to just eek out extra attunement, and if you were dipping wizard, there would have to be a real reason for it. (I can also see splitting the difference and giving wizard/fighter a base 2 attunement, but..... I'd want to think it through more).

Thanks for the input, that definitely gives me more to chew on in thinking this idea through.

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-16, 05:20 PM

Thanks for the input, that definitely gives me more to chew on in thinking this idea through. Interesting brain storming exercise, I think your instinct on 'you get the slot allowance based on your lower attunement number' is a good idea (though I'd just ban multiclassing...which I guess is too dire of a solution for your proposal?)

Marcloure

2022-02-16, 05:27 PM

Aalbatr0ss

2022-02-16, 06:01 PM

Just curious because I don't have much experience playing or DMing beyond L9, but I'm getting ready for both...

Where do we think that "end of an era" point is on the graph where casters & martials flip? I've been involved in 4 long running games involving all classes in one form or another, and I'm not seeing huge disparities between martials and casters. People are playing for fun and not a lot of "optimization" at my tables, but where does this start to become a serious problem?

I'm guessing around level 11-13 or so?

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-16, 06:45 PM

I'd say lvl 13 is a substantial step increas: 7th level spells are a whole new ball game. (Heck some 6th level spells are scary good).

tiornys

2022-02-17, 12:04 AM

Aalbatr0ss

2022-02-17, 01:09 AM

The crossover point is not the same as the point where the disparity becomes a serious problem. Crossover is when they're roughly the same power level, and that's somewhere around levels 3-5. The point where the disparity grows enough to start posing serious problems in adventure and encounter design is around 11-13.

I will keep this in mind. I’m my experience there isn’t much disparity in levels 5-9. Maybe more so in the 1-2 encounter adventuring day. But I also don’t have that much experience, so not challenging your assertion. If a party is really doing a tough dungeon I don’t see casters out-powering maritals in tier 2.

Athan Artilliam

2022-02-17, 01:19 AM

An easy way to do this is to invert the Spell Level chart.

A character has 10 Attunement slots (a lot compared to 5e but not so much compared to 3.5 slots) each time you gain a Spell Level your total goes down by one.

Of course you could frame it by a different number & have it go down every x amount of levels too. Like

4 Slots -1 at 3, 6, & 9th Spell Level. Works gor multiclassing too

sithlordnergal

2022-02-17, 02:04 AM

Soo, this is far, far too harsh on casters, a significant debuff for half-casters, and too much of a buff for martials. I wouldn't try to balance things based on attunement slots, magic items are far too swingy. At level 20 your Fighter could easily be breaking the game via:

Belt of Cloud Giant Strength, 29 Str

Vorpal Sword

Armor of Invulnerability

Boots of Speed

Ring of Spell Storing

Now, obviously its up to the DM to hand out magic items, so you can argue that a Fighter would never get that sort of stuff. But then I ask: How is limiting attunement slots going to balance anything? If you're making sure not to hand out OP items, then just don't hand out a bunch of OP items that only the wizard can benefit from. Hand out one powerful staff for the wizard, and two minor attunement items that a Wizard would enjoy. Congrats, you've accomplished the same thing without making it feel like you're punishing the Wizard. As long as you don't explicitly tell the Wizard what you're doing, they likely won't notice, unless you're being really, really egregious with your items, such as the above list for the Fighter and just a single staff for the Wizard.

This method is similar to trying to balance a caster by requiring expensive material components that always get consumed for a majority of spells and not giving the caster a way to replace them relatively easily. Its ultimately in your hands, and it won't really work.

I'd say just buff martial classes instead of trying to use attunement slots

sithlordnergal

2022-02-17, 02:06 AM

Rangers post-Tasha's are absolutely fine in tier 1+2, they can drop off a bit in tier 3 (subclass/build varies a bit here) and their tier 4 class features are not good, but since the vast majority of games seem to be played in tier 1/2, I disagree with them sucking.

I should probably post my actual 'fix' for the quadratic/linear problem: Make all full casters half casters and add real (sub)class features to compensate. Or simply don't play into tier 3/4, like most groups don't.
My Redux Sorcerer (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/-LfWZyiMRfAq) based upon the old playtest materials was created with the half-caster concept in mind. It certainly can be done. It's effort, mind you, but it's definitely doable.

I've seen several rangers in the games I've DM'd, both pre and post-Tasha's. I can definitively say...they still suck. They've gotten minor improvements, but they're still at the bottom of the barrel class wise.

Aalbatr0ss

2022-02-17, 08:39 AM

I've seen several rangers in the games I've DM'd, both pre and post-Tasha's. I can definitively say...they still suck. They've gotten minor improvements, but they're still at the bottom of the barrel class wise.

A 5th level ranger has good skills, d10 hit die, 2 attacks, a fighting style, summon beast, spike growth, fog cloud, and (yes, I know) hunter’s mark. Not all subclasses are equal. But who can a tier 2 gloom stalker (or any Tasha’s subclass) not keep up with? At my tables I’m seeing a swarmkeeper and 2 fey wanderers who are all the best consistent (round-to-round, not nova) damage dealers in their party.

They might not keep up at a table of multiclassed charisma casters or something, but they’re just fine. Swarmkeeper is showing itself to be an excellent controller in tier 2 and I want to play one.

clash

2022-02-17, 09:12 AM

MarkVIIIMarc

2022-02-17, 09:22 AM

The chart needs some numbers on it. Some kind of show of hit points, hit dice, estimated damage per round and....

Wait,

Wish can be its own deck of cards in the wrong hands.

I would love seeing a chart showing damage per round over several encounters in the same day.

This is turning into some work.

How much does it change if you just give the fighter a vorpal sword?

But yeah, my what, level 11 Lore Bard is gonna save the Animatsd Objectes slot for the biggest battle of any day.

MadBear

2022-02-17, 03:59 PM

I think pinning the solution on magic items is the wrong way to design it. Each class should be balanced by their own merit not by what items they may or may not get.

My suggestion is give martials real high level features. Things that are on par with high level magic.

A 20th level barbarian should be able to perform massive hulk like leaps and throw a dragon overhead.

A 20th level monk has flash level speed, is immune to opportunity attacks and can skirmish across hundreds of feet in a turn.

A 20th level ranger can track creatures across multiple planes.

Rogues have a great 11 level features in reliable talent but let's give them a level 17 feature that lets them never roll below 15.

The problem is people look at 9th level spells and are like sure those can do anything. The characters are basically gods at this point. Then look at a 20th level fighter and say he can't do that. That's not possible without magic. Guess what the fighter should be near God tier as well. He is no longer a mere mortal. He is the stuff of myths and legends so let the class represent that.

What you're describing is a problem with the way so many different people see the genre that D&D is engaged with. Personally, I agree that the simplest fix would be to give the fighter/monk/etc. abilities that are the equivalents of a 9th level spell, but the problem with this is that it breaks what many see as being the point of the genre. (in fact this is what they did in 4th edition that actually fixed the issue, but was also soundly rejected by so many people, even though I quite liked it personally).

People (not all, but enough) don't want a fighter who is supernatural.

If this was a Comic, people seems to want a fighter who is batman, not superman. So within that framework, giving martials additional magic items that add to their utility was a solution I had come up with. It definitely isn't perfect, and as you point out you do run a risk if the DM doesn't recognize this fact and give you items accordingly.

Athan Artilliam

2022-02-17, 04:14 PM

What you're describing is a problem with the way so many different people see the genre that D&D is engaged with. Personally, I agree that the simplest fix would be to give the fighter/monk/etc. abilities that are the equivalents of a 9th level spell, but the problem with this is that it breaks what many see as being the point of the genre. (in fact this is what they did in 4th edition that actually fixed the issue, but was also soundly rejected by so many people, even though I quite liked it personally).

People (not all, but enough) don't want a fighter who is supernatural.

If this was a Comic, people seems to want a fighter who is batman, not superman. So within that framework, giving martials additional magic items that add to their utility was a solution I had come up with. It definitely isn't perfect, and as you point out you do run a risk if the DM doesn't recognize this fact and give you items accordingly.

Some rejected it not because the Fighter was magical, but because the language was heavily artificial "roll Str against Dex Defense to resist Shift for every creature in a 5ft Blast" I dont know if that's accurate but it's an example of the heavy keywording issue. Then there was the problem that all the classes had the same mechanics. AEDU feels the same whether its Arcane, Primal, or Martial.

Melil12

2022-02-17, 04:31 PM

We actually are testing some fixes proposed by Tyrantmonk.

Casters can only cast in armor in armor their class gives them.
No more shield spell …
Also making The sharpshooter and GWM -5 tohit +5 dmg a feature available to all martial arts.

Though granted in Tier 3-4 high level casters still have game changing spells. These changes at least give materials a bit of an edge.

MadBear

2022-02-17, 05:21 PM

Some rejected it not because the Fighter was magical, but because the language was heavily artificial "roll Str against Dex Defense to resist Shift for every creature in a 5ft Blast" I dont know if that's accurate but it's an example of the heavy keywording issue. Then there was the problem that all the classes had the same mechanics. AEDU feels the same whether its Arcane, Primal, or Martial.

Oh for sure, there is a vast multitude of reasons that people liked and didn't like 4th edition (an edition that I got to play for the first time earlier this year, and actually really enjoyed it, and found it underrated compared to what I had heard). I only bring that up, as an example of a solution to making martials parallel to casters that was widely rejected.

HPisBS

2022-02-17, 05:46 PM

... I'd say just buff martial classes instead of trying to use attunement slots

Yep, this is always my response. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsC8io4w1sY&t=142s)

Battle Masters and Zealots seem too normal compared to the Monster Dominating, Magnificent Mansion-ing Bard? Well, we're talking about fantastical heroes of the ages by that point, so why are the former still so normal and realistic? Beowulf was said to have held his breath for hours while swimming (in armor), wielded a giant's sword, and dismembered Grendel with his bare hands. So give the poor tier 3+ martials some of that!

[Edit: it doesn't necessarily even need to feel outright supernatural.]

- Some kind of Endurance trait that makes them resistant to exhaustion.
- Maybe some Heroic Might to let them jump/push/pull/drag/lift/carry as though they were a size larger (stackable with Powerful Build).
- Or Heroic Agility to run along and jump between tree branches and other difficult footing.
- - or to grant the quickness to swing/throw/snatch something while seeming to stand still.
- - - or to make after-images.
- Maybe Heroic Reflexes could grant a second Reaction each round (¿limited to PB times / short rest?).
- Eyes of the Eagle could become an item that's actually based off of a high-level Ranger's "Eagle-eyed" vision!

Buffs are always more interesting, exciting, and fun. So, buff. Don't nerf.

An easy way to do this is to invert the Spell Level chart.

A character has 10 Attunement slots (a lot compared to 5e but not so much compared to 3.5 slots) each time you gain a Spell Level your total goes down by one.

Of course you could frame it by a different number & have it go down every x amount of levels too. Like

4 Slots -1 at 3, 6, & 9th Spell Level. Works gor multiclassing too

If someone dislikes the idea of buffing late-game martials for some reason - perhaps because getting the right balance between "peak human" and "superman" seems too daunting of an enterprise - then this seems like a relatively decent alternative. But it'd probably be better to combine it with a sort of 1-point-per-rarity-level aspect.

MrCharlie

2022-02-17, 06:35 PM

Overview:
So I was thinking of how to help balance out a wish casting wizard and 4 attacks per round fighter in Tier 3/4 play.

One of the biggest issues is that as spells have a massive varieties of uses while attacks focus on a single pillar of play and no other. This has been an issue that has never been satisfactorily solved (to everyone's liking). But I think I have an idea for future editions that might help solve this.

https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/wizardsandmelees_9442.jpg

Constraints:

In order for this to be a successful solution I put in the following things I'm keeping in mind

The problem must alleviate some of the power disparity between casters and martials
The solution must attempt to match pre-existing tropes of the genre
The solution must still allow for a wide variety of players to have fun within said system.
The solution must not disrupt the balance too much at early levels when the classes are much closer to balanced.

Solution:

My solution is to take the magic item system and rework it in the following way:

- Full Casters only have 1 attunement slot. The fluff reason can simply be that the infusion of magic that they're using prevents them from having more then this.
- Half Casters get to have 2 attunement slots
- Full martials add extra attunement slots at various levels (10, 15, 20 maybe).
- More magic items that add to other dimensions of play other then just combat
- Less magic items that are pure stat buffs
- More magic items that add new things for a character to do on their turn.

If you want a more justified way to do this in-game, make it so that arcane foci require attunement, and make it so that stave/wand magic items are deliberately weak-I.E. a wand of fireballs doesn't give you fireballs, it makes it so that you can prepare fireball, and cast it as if one level higher when you use a spell slot.

Full-casters, in addition to having an arcane focus, also have to attune to a magic source item, like a spellbook, or a pact item, or a holy symbol.

I also second the idea of making it so there are only 1/2 casters, maybe with some higher level spells sprinkled in a Mystic Arcanum fashion. Make it so that high level casters progress slightly faster compared to 1/2 casters (no dead levels), and end up with a few 6th or 7th level spells to use a couple times a day. Something like a signature spell for every wizard school to learn at 16th level, or every domain grants one high level spell.

If we look at the core of this idea, then they system strongly resembles Starfinder. Starfinder has no full casters (and Wish is a capstone ability that can be used once every couple days), but has many 2/3 casters. Martial characters make up for a lack of casting by either having supernatural abilities, or by using technological items which are comparable in power and utility to spells. Technomancers cast fly; Soldiers activate their jetpacks. Some martials are still somewhat underpowered because some pseudo-class feats (often call "tricks") are underpowered compared to spells and everyone can buy a tech item-but the system as a whole has defeated the core issue.

Power creep still favors casters, mostly because they get more spells than martials get class feats, and the system as a whole has a real big issue with being too stringy with its boosts and scaling way to hard as you level, but it did solve the caster/martial issue and has all the tools to make that solution stick.

It just had to be set in space with technology approaching magic to do it.

The core problem with DnD is that the non-supernatural dude is a chump. The setting isn't made for him. He's cannon fodder.

So when you play him, you're cannon fodder. You're not Batman, you're henchman number 21. Maybe henchman number 21 managed to get a cool fight scene with Captain America, but you're still that dude at the end of the day.

And...That's it. There's no punchline.

Batman had his utility belt. Green arrow his trick arrows. Even at their most mundane, they had access to modern tech, which can compete with DnD magic in many fields. Playing batman where the dominant power source is wind or water currents, or literal horsepower, is a no-go proposition. Batman isn't non-magical dude in DnD, Batman has "magic" on the scale that an artificer does.

So the solution is to make it so that non-casters do supernatural stuff, either through magic items or through magical abilities, just as much as casters do. That's the direction the game has gone for a while now-and it works. 1

Echo knights are nightcrawler, and they are a blast to play because of it; constantly relocation is a powerful enough trick that you maintain relevancy in and out of combat at most levels, because the spells that mimic it are expensive and duplicates are costless. Rune knights are significantly more limited but still have some basic control and misdirection magic for combat, as well as enough self-buffing to at least play the same game as other characters. Soul-Knives have a decent number of magic tricks, and even Wild Magic Barbarians have some magic capability-but Barbarian as a whole is still highly limited by its class design.

Can you, instead, make magic items the solution? Absolutely! But magic items need to be three things.

1. Common. I don't mean in terms of rarity-rarity is a joke-but I mean the party needs to find them, consistently, virtually every level up.
2. Bound to a character. Attunement handles this, but there are still rough edges.
3. Highly matched with leveling, and reliable on level-up. And this is where the game starts running into issues.

Starfinders other cardinal sin is that it's super, super MMO-like in terms of items. Items have levels, better items have higher levels, the players have to find these items or buy them to continue. This occurs when it makes some sense (a more complicated tech item has a higher level than a less complicated one) and when it does not (A weaker version of a gun has a lower level than a stronger version of a gun...Despite firing the same ammo). Further, if you don't get the right items as you level up, you're screwed-and casters dominate again, because they don't need to play this game to keep their damage numbers up.

Thus regulating player wealth and rewarding items is a huge, huge deal. Underrewarding players is death to the game. Overrewarding them only makes things too easy, which means its still playable but starts breaking at the seams. Overall, it's tough.

I don't know what a perfect system looks like, with these issues in mind. Some issues appear to be unbeatable, if you want to keep a believable world.

But the core idea? No issues. Just gotta figure out execution.

1 and yes, this means there is no room for a truly low-magic game with DnD. Nothing like Frodo's grueling march to Mount Doom, or the grounded fantasy of A Song of Ice and Fire. This is fine, because DnD isn't every game system, it's DnD. It needs to accept its core identity and move on.

clash

2022-02-17, 06:35 PM

What you're describing is a problem with the way so many different people see the genre that D&D is engaged with. Personally, I agree that the simplest fix would be to give the fighter/monk/etc. abilities that are the equivalents of a 9th level spell, but the problem with this is that it breaks what many see as being the point of the genre. (in fact this is what they did in 4th edition that actually fixed the issue, but was also soundly rejected by so many people, even though I quite liked it personally).

People (not all, but enough) don't want a fighter who is supernatural.

If this was a Comic, people seems to want a fighter who is batman, not superman. So within that framework, giving martials additional magic items that add to their utility was a solution I had come up with. It definitely isn't perfect, and as you point out you do run a risk if the DM doesn't recognize this fact and give you items accordingly.

I would argue that giving fighters magical items is much more magical than giving them superhuman endurance and strength. But that's an aside, in my opinion if you want to play Batman you don't want to play tier 4 d&d. You can play Batman fine at lower tiers. So use those tiers for that type of experience
don't limit the high tiers for people that realistically want to play lower tier. Further, whenever Batman does get into tier 4 situations he brings an appropriate response. He has the batwing and a mech suit instead of fists and gadgets.

HPisBS

2022-02-17, 10:33 PM

... don't limit the high tiers for people that realistically want to play lower tier. Further, whenever Batman does get into tier 4 situations he brings an appropriate response. He has the batwing and a mech suit instead of fists and gadgets.

Yep. The Batman vs Iron Man Death Battle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcSDxeBBolQ) really hammers that point.

If something is beyond the mundane's ability to hang, then the mundane just needs to acquire a power-up. That can be with tools, or with magic. Spirits. Mysticism. Holy relics. Infernal power stolen from a former archfiend. Whatever.

Kane0

2022-02-17, 11:03 PM

Iff we could remake the system, a solution wouldn't actually be that hard: instead of an ever-increasing number of spell slots, full casters should hit a cap and then start losing their lower level slots to gain higher level ones. Since in the current system casters have an ever-growing number of spells, their power also grows too much. That is the solution 13th Age came up with, and it works pretty well there.

This is an interesting idea. Casters either get more spell slots or more spell power, not both. This wouldn't fix martials having fewer tools outside of combat, but it is one aspect that makes the problem easier to tackle.

ATHATH

2022-02-17, 11:41 PM

If you want a more justified way to do this in-game, make it so that arcane foci require attunement, and make it so that stave/wand magic items are deliberately weak-I.E. a wand of fireballs doesn't give you fireballs, it makes it so that you can prepare fireball, and cast it as if one level higher when you use a spell slot.

Full-casters, in addition to having an arcane focus, also have to attune to a magic source item, like a spellbook, or a pact item, or a holy symbol.

Hm, what about this:
*The number of attunement slots you have is equal to 1+your proficiency bonus.
*The maximum spell level you can cast is equal to [the number of foci you are attuned to and have on your person]*2. Yes, it is intentional that you can cast cantrips while not attuned to a focus.
*Foci can be attuned to (kind of required for the above), and you can fill multiple focus slots with attunements to the same focus. Thus, if you don't feel like walking around with three wands on your person, you can decide to walk around with just one (that you've attuned to 3 times) and still retain your ability to cast 6th level spells, although you will be putting all of your eggs in one basket.
*This spell-granting effect of attuning to a focus is separate from the normal attunement effects of magical foci (wands of fireballs, staves of ice, etc.), and attuning to one does not grant you access to the other. Thus, if you want to be able to expend charges to fire fireballs from a wand of fireballs and still cast spells of 1st-2nd level, you're gonna need to spend two attunement slots. No attunement tax evasion here.

This avoids the multiclassing problem and automatically accounts for half-casters and the like. It also avoids the headache of needing to sift through all of the existing magic items that can be used as foci and nerfing them all that your proposal would. Artificers might need a special class feature or something to avoid getting hit too hard by it, though.

MrCharlie

2022-02-18, 12:06 AM

Hm, what about this:
*The number of attunement slots you have is equal to 1+your proficiency bonus.
*The maximum spell level you can cast is equal to [the number of foci you are attuned to and have on your person]*2. Yes, it is intentional that you can cast cantrips while not attuned to a focus.
*Foci can be attuned to (kind of required for the above), and you can fill multiple focus slots with attunements to the same focus. Thus, if you don't feel like walking around with three wands on your person, you can decide to walk around with just one (that you've attuned to 3 times) and still retain your ability to cast 6th level spells, although you will be putting all of your eggs in one basket.
*This spell-granting effect of attuning to a focus is separate from the normal attunement effects of magical foci (wands of fireballs, staves of ice, etc.), and attuning to one does not grant you access to the other. Thus, if you want to be able to expend charges to fire fireballs from a wand of fireballs and still cast spells of 1st-2nd level, you're gonna need to spend two attunement slots. No attunement tax evasion here.

This avoids the multiclassing problem and automatically accounts for half-casters and the like. It also avoids the headache of needing to sift through all of the existing magic items that can be used as foci and nerfing them all that your proposal would. Artificers might need a special class feature or something to avoid getting hit too hard by it, though.
This breaks any pretense of believability. It has no internal logic with how attunement is supposed to work. Also, foci become an increasing attunement tax that is tied to your class features, which is...Somewhat silly.

The multiclassing problems are incidental to not having a reason why half or full casters are limited to one attunement slot, which is why I was trying to come up with an actual mechanism for it. This variation goes in a direction I don't think is interesting or useful.

On the other hand, it'd fit great with a system where Wizards made their own items to cast spells, A-la Harry Dresden, and could be a way to handle artificers if you wanted to go that direction-I'd change the precise effects, but attunement slots for spell slots is an exchange rate that makes sense when the artificer is making their own items and their casting is item sourced in lore.

Melil12

2022-02-18, 08:19 AM

Spiritchaser

2022-02-18, 08:34 AM

How about giving classes attunment slot progression.

Step one: assign a number of slots each item requires. Some might take 1, others might take 5 (or whatever)

Step 2: define a by level attument slot progression. As a starting point this would be very crudely similar to the spell point progression, though of course much lower and less progressive. Full casters would get the fewest. Half casters would get a middling number and non casters and artificers would get the most. A subclass could potentially gain extra as a feature if it made sense

Clearly there’s still be lots of work to do on the specific items, but you could create high tier world bending items with enough slots to bar them ever being used by a full caster.

MC should work fine, you gain slots based on levels in that class and add them, much as you would spell points.

Pildion

2022-02-18, 08:35 AM

If you want to nerf casters down in late game play, you can always get rid of the bad game breaking spells. Wish, Simulacrum, True Polymorph, well leaving the others. Also, what about 90% of the games played where your in tier 1\2 and Martials are better then casters? According to this chart...

Willie the Duck

2022-02-18, 10:45 AM

I like the idea of this. Certainly in TSR-era, one of the big things that Fighting Men/Fighters had going for them was that most magic items were geared towards them (and the thief ability to use both fighter swords and wizard scrolls/crystal balls/etc. was a defining class feature).

That said, it runs into the problem that in 5e there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how often and how powerful magic item finds should be (and whether magic items are routinely for sale, etc.). What if the benefit was both item slot and item availability? One thing that happens in myth* quite frequently is that the mythic hero (who often doesn't have to be a paragon of some virtue, simply destined for greatness) has some deity or another come down and say, 'you are destined for big things, to help you do so, here's my Girdle of Being Awesome.' This could give the martial both a slot and an item to fill it (and the slot could be filled with something even more epic, if you pick such up thereafter).
*can't mention specifics

If you want to nerf casters down in late game play, you can always get rid of the bad game breaking spells. Wish, Simulacrum, True Polymorph, well leaving the others. Also, what about 90% of the games played where your in tier 1\2 and Martials are better then casters? According to this chart...
That is certainly the first thing that my group tends to do.
As to the 90% where martials are better, I doubt that. I think the chart was built for 3e. At least with the commonly discussed issue of fitting 6-8 encounters into a long rest recharge, I don't know that there really is a time when the martials are strictly better (they hold their own for most of tier 1-2, though). I guess the question becomes are you likely to have massively multiple attuned magic items show up in that level span?

Notafish

2022-02-18, 03:47 PM

The issue I have with magic vs. martial in 5th isn't so much power creep (I think the highest level campaign I ever played got to 11th) but that the spells often take up real-world time in ways that don't always match their impact on an encounter, while also being not a particularly scarce resource after T1-2 which lessens their dramatic impact. My tastes also run towards low-effort magic not being an everyday thing, even in fantasy worlds, so high-level 5e wizards are also just not my bag, but neither are god-tier fighty heroes that rely on magic items or 4e-style spell-like abilities... Really, I think the martial curve looks like it scales well, while the spellcasters' higher levels get too silly for me, whether or not the spells break the game.

I think that making higher level spells cost more slots (as someone suggested) is one way to make the big spells feel "bigger" and rarer, but I also wonder if the spells above 5th level might be best treated differently in all classes (not just warlocks). This could allow for more mechanical variation between different sources of magic, in addition to capping the amount of high-level spells flying around.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-18, 03:54 PM

Another thing to consider, in just about every source book released there has been a buff to casters Via new spells. This is basically adding features to a casting class every book while there is no system to do so for martial classes.

They really need to add a Tome of battle system for martials. Battlemaster is a great subclass just because it gives these options.

For those of you who don’t know ToB it’s from 3.5 basically were martial classes given maneuvers they could use through out the day, to do unique effects. It was what launched the way 4E was played.

The first part--yes. That's a large degree of the issue is that gaining new abilities is way easier and quicker for spell-casters than for martials. New books proportionately buff casters more.

The second part, no. Turning martials into spell-casters-by-another-name (ie ToB) just makes the whole thing ridiculous and compounds the issue. Better to solve it by hitting the root. Which is caster scaling.

If you want to nerf casters down in late game play, you can always get rid of the bad game breaking spells. Wish, Simulacrum, True Polymorph, well leaving the others. Also, what about 90% of the games played where your in tier 1\2 and Martials are better then casters? According to this chart...

True enough.

----------

Personally, a large part of the solution needs to be democratization. Take a bunch of effects that are caster-exclusive now and make them available to everyone on the same terms. Which means moving them outside the spell system entirely. Yes, that means that if you're a hard-core "my character won't have anything to do with magic, I'm just an ordinary muggle" player, you're still stuck. But that, I think, is a viewpoint that doesn't need to be catered to. Allow people to do fantastic without casting spells, and without giving them spells with the identifying marks removed. Because if you strictly try to add competing features to martials, then every new spell that comes out means you need to adjust and add features as well. Which is bloat^2.

Instead, move most of the non-combat things outside the spell system. Does it need to happen now in the face of active, initiative-level opposition? Then it's probably a spell. But combat isn't where the imbalance lies, in general, at least without heavy optimization. And most things out of combat don't need to happen now. They can be ritualized. The key is that these rituals aren't just another way of casting spells--those spells that they came from don't exist anymore. The only access is via a separate mechanism that everyone interacts with on equal terms.

MrCharlie

2022-02-18, 04:46 PM

That's a large degree of the issue is that gaining new abilities is way easier and quicker for spell-casters than for martials. New books proportionately buff casters more.

Personally, a large part of the solution needs to be democratization. Take a bunch of effects that are caster-exclusive now and make them available to everyone on the same terms. Which means moving them outside the spell system entirely. Yes, that means that if you're a hard-core "my character won't have anything to do with magic, I'm just an ordinary muggle" player, you're still stuck. But that, I think, is a viewpoint that doesn't need to be catered to. Allow people to do fantastic without casting spells, and without giving them spells with the identifying marks removed. Because if you strictly try to add competing features to martials, then every new spell that comes out means you need to adjust and add features as well. Which is bloat^2.

I'd argue bloat isn't a death sentence by itself. Even highly bloated systems aren't unfun. It needs to be controlled to a baseline so that the DM has at least a prayers chance of knowing what's possible in the system, even if they don't know every option (and can never know every option) but simply having an expanding option base with multiple releases isn't a death sentence.

Otherwise, I agree. Some specifics.

If you want to design a muggle within this schema, go all in. They aren't merely non-casters, spells (and other magic) ceases working around them.

If the fighter could counter magic by literally cutting it out of the air, follow teleportation effects, eat dragonfire, and cancel force walls at a touch, they'd maintain relevance even in a magic heavy system.

This still steps on the toes of players who want to play a hero who doesn't interact with the world, but honestly they're in denial. Even within his setting, someone like Batman uses technomagic, tailored to the threats he's facing.

Instead, move most of the non-combat things outside the spell system. Does it need to happen now in the face of active, initiative-level opposition? Then it's probably a spell. But combat isn't where the imbalance lies, in general, at least without heavy optimization. And most things out of combat don't need to happen now. They can be ritualized. The key is that these rituals aren't just another way of casting spells--those spells that they came from don't exist anymore. The only access is via a separate mechanism that everyone interacts with on equal terms.
I'm not sure I like the idea of actual rituals being equal opportunity-if only because there are many character themes that won't engage with them. On the other hand some more generic system that includes stuff like Witcher-style mutagens, artificer tinkering, martial stancework, and both religious and arcane ritualism can easily encompass the desired effects. I can't imagine what the name of this system would be on a whole, but that's the direction I'd take it.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-18, 05:07 PM

I'd argue bloat isn't a death sentence by itself. Even highly bloated systems aren't unfun. It needs to be controlled to a baseline so that the DM has at least a prayers chance of knowing what's possible in the system, even if they don't know every option (and can never know every option) but simply having an expanding option base with multiple releases isn't a death sentence.

4e did this. Everything was a specific ability. And it sucked having to dig through pages and pages of "spells" to figure out what you can do. And fuels the "if you don't have a specific ability, you can't do it" problem.

Even if you condensed it down to 1 "spell list" per power source (Arcane, Divine, Primal, Martial), you're still roughly doubling the number of pages. And if all arcane people share the same list, and all martial people share the same list...why are they different classes?

Bloat is exhausting. And causes combinatorial problems (each thing is fine by itself, but when combined lego fashion, the number of combinations is huge and breakage will occur).

I'm not sure I like the idea of actual rituals being equal opportunity-if only because there are many character themes that won't engage with them. On the other hand some more generic system that includes stuff like Witcher-style mutagens, artificer tinkering, martial stancework, and both religious and arcane ritualism can easily encompass the desired effects. I can't imagine what the name of this system would be on a whole, but that's the direction I'd take it.

I'm not particularly concerned with character themes. These would be the way that anyone in the world who wants to do <thing> does them. The idea that each character needs a different way of dealing with fundamental metaphysical effects is, to my mind, bad for anything like a coherent setting. Magic A is Magic A. It all interfaces with the same world, so it probably should interface in mostly the same way. Characters come from the world, and saying "oh, I don't chant mystic words, that's not in my character concept" is entirely meta thinking. To them, it's just how it happens. Just like people today don't generally say "I don't use cell phones, that's not in my character. Instead I pass messages by smoke signals." People will use what works and what's convenient. Hard character concepts are for super-hero movies where everything is pigeon-holed. I don't like that for D&D characters.

My design (there's a thread in the Homebrew section) is what I call Incantations. These were spells (for the first pass) that are moved outside the spell system. Each one has a rarity (like a magic item), describing what level you need to be to learn/use it (roughly what tier it falls under) and how hard it is to acquire the knowledge (which could be taught by a mentor, discovered in ancient ruins, or learned from a pamphlet bought at a store for the common ones). They have a "performance time" of at least one Full Round[1]. They also have 0 or more "consequences" like
1) having to provide a costly component each time
2) requiring a costly focus item (not consumed)
3) imposing 1 or more exhaustion levels if you do it again before a long rest (or in rare cases on first cast, for the really powerful things)
4) requiring you to not move or you lose the effect
5) requiring 2 or more people who also know the incantation (usually for things that affect a group of people)
6) explicit cooldowns
7) being location-bound (things like requiring a ritual circle drawn out to bind a being)

The exact form they take, however, isn't specified. Water Breathing might be a ritual beseeching the water spirits to come to your aid or it might be brewing up a potion that you all drink. Etc.

[1] takes effect at the start of your next turn, requires your action, bonus action, reaction, and all your movement on that turn.

MrCharlie

2022-02-18, 05:53 PM

4e did this. Everything was a specific ability. And it sucked having to dig through pages and pages of "spells" to figure out what you can do. And fuels the "if you don't have a specific ability, you can't do it" problem.

Even if you condensed it down to 1 "spell list" per power source (Arcane, Divine, Primal, Martial), you're still roughly doubling the number of pages. And if all arcane people share the same list, and all martial people share the same list...why are they different classes?

Bloat is exhausting. And causes combinatorial problems (each thing is fine by itself, but when combined lego fashion, the number of combinations is huge and breakage will occur).

I disagree that this is an inevitable result of the system having a design where characters have class options that, while not spells, are...pseudo spells? Spell-like? I think that had more to do with 4e's incompetency. I agree bloat can be a problem and needs some controls. I disagree its inevitable or game-breaking on the whole.

I actually think 5e has a decent solution to it, in that there are more "setting" books than "extra rules" books. If the core assumption is "pick from this setting" than "pick from all things ever" then the bloat gets less problematic.

I'm not particularly concerned with character themes. These would be the way that anyone in the world who wants to do <thing> does them. The idea that each character needs a different way of dealing with fundamental metaphysical effects is, to my mind, bad for anything like a coherent setting. Magic A is Magic A. It all interfaces with the same world, so it probably should interface in mostly the same way. Characters come from the world, and saying "oh, I don't chant mystic words, that's not in my character concept" is entirely meta thinking. To them, it's just how it happens. Just like people today don't generally say "I don't use cell phones, that's not in my character. Instead I pass messages by smoke signals." People will use what works and what's convenient. Hard character concepts are for super-hero movies where everything is pigeon-holed. I don't like that for D&D characters.

...

The exact form they take, however, isn't specified. Water Breathing might be a ritual beseeching the water spirits to come to your aid or it might be brewing up a potion that you all drink. Etc.

People desire their characters and classes to diverge, and for there to be character and role diversity. Yeah, I can easily imagine a "ranger" using a ritual. I am very distinctly imagining Aragorn doing so in LOTR to heal people as an example, but I would much rather it work and be called something different. It should both behave and play differently, because he's a different character from, say, Gandalf.

For instance, imagine that we have a system of rituals which beseech other entities for power. These rituals come with drawbacks, and generally excel at moving things from other places or even summoning entities from other planes. A water breathing ritual might beseech a Djinn for air from the plane of air-and thus work without any constraints on what the local medium is. However to learn them you need to actually know a Djinn, and they incur a debt-air ain't free, and until payed (according to the Djinn's whim) you can take penalties of various forms related to being out of breath.

Meanwhile maybe our ranger specializes in a system of mutagens, which takes what makes a creature or plant special (I.E. magical) and gives it to the user. A mutagen of water breathing might involve harvesting the gills of a Sahuagin and dissolving them in an acid before ingesting the mixture. You can only breath in water, and for the duration of the mutagen you suffer issues when moving from water to air. It's a more specific effect, but the side effects are much more limited in time and scope. Mutagens aren't deals, they are self-modifications using other creatures as templates, and their strengths and drawbacks are different.

This isn't to say both systems should have the same effects or that this is even desirous, I'm just using water breathing because it's an ability many characters are going to need to duplicate (or underwater adventures grind to a screeching halt). The idea would be to add more game diversity by creating different fundamental support magic systems, and different effects are preferable to that, even if they end up the same sometimes.

I do agree that it's certainly easier to just create one system of invocations, the bloat issue is real, and magic will be made more "confused" in theme, but people like diversity. If given the choice, I feel that most players would rather have a system that lets each class (or groupings of classes) have their own out-of-combat utility than simply reference a single set of options and having to explain why the fighter and the wizard can both do "spellcasting".

I also agree that this form of magic should not necessarily be "special" in universe. As you say we don't consider using a cell phone special or a glasses to be some spectacular "hack" of reality, and neither should characters consider rituals such. Honestly, if it weren't for the idea of class themes and game diversity I'd say let them all be flat out rituals. If you could sprinkle some salt and ask glarblygook for aid to breath water, you'd sure as hell learn those magic words, even if you didn't go to wizard school and don't understand why it works.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-18, 06:28 PM

I disagree that this is an inevitable result of the system having a design where characters have class options that, while not spells, are...pseudo spells? Spell-like? I think that had more to do with 4e's incompetency. I agree bloat can be a problem and needs some controls. I disagree its inevitable or game-breaking on the whole.

I actually think 5e has a decent solution to it, in that there are more "setting" books than "extra rules" books. If the core assumption is "pick from this setting" than "pick from all things ever" then the bloat gets less problematic.

True. It's not inevitable or game-breaking, but it's very easy for it to become a drag on the game.

People desire their characters and classes to diverge, and for there to be character and role diversity. Yeah, I can easily imagine a "ranger" using a ritual. I am very distinctly imagining Aragorn doing so in LOTR to heal people as an example, but I would much rather it work and be called something different. It should both behave and play differently, because he's a different character from, say, Gandalf.

For instance, imagine that we have a system of rituals which beseech other entities for power. These rituals come with drawbacks, and generally excel at moving things from other places or even summoning entities from other planes. A water breathing ritual might beseech a Djinn for air from the plane of air-and thus work without any constraints on what the local medium is. However to learn them you need to actually know a Djinn, and they incur a debt-air ain't free, and until payed (according to the Djinn's whim) you can take penalties of various forms related to being out of breath.

Meanwhile maybe our ranger specializes in a system of mutagens, which takes what makes a creature or plant special (I.E. magical) and gives it to the user. A mutagen of water breathing might involve harvesting the gills of a Sahuagin and dissolving them in an acid before ingesting the mixture. You can only breath in water, and for the duration of the mutagen you suffer issues when moving from water to air. It's a more specific effect, but the side effects are much more limited in time and scope. Mutagens aren't deals, they are self-modifications using other creatures as templates, and their strengths and drawbacks are different.

This isn't to say both systems should have the same effects or that this is even desirous, I'm just using water breathing because it's an ability many characters are going to need to duplicate (or underwater adventures grind to a screeching halt). The idea would be to add more game diversity by creating different fundamental support magic systems, and different effects are preferable to that, even if they end up the same sometimes.

I do agree that it's certainly easier to just create one system of invocations, the bloat issue is real, and magic will be made more "confused" in theme, but people like diversity. If given the choice, I feel that most players would rather have a system that lets each class (or groupings of classes) have their own out-of-combat utility than simply reference a single set of options and having to explain why the fighter and the wizard can both do "spellcasting".

I also agree that this form of magic should not necessarily be "special" in universe. As you say we don't consider using a cell phone special or a glasses to be some spectacular "hack" of reality, and neither should characters consider rituals such. Honestly, if it weren't for the idea of class themes and game diversity I'd say let them all be flat out rituals. If you could sprinkle some salt and ask glarblygook for aid to breath water, you'd sure as hell learn those magic words, even if you didn't go to wizard school and don't understand why it works.

I don't see characters that way. Me being a ranger doesn't mean I interact with the world differently (necessarily) than someone else doing the same thing. It also becomes a real problem at the game level, because it's easy for support to diverge. As it has for battlemaster maneuvers and spells. And some ways of interacting are fictionally more bound than others, which leads to the less bound ones dominating. As spells do. And let me tell you, coming up with a coherent, relatively balanced system for one basic implementation is enough work. Trying to find thematic ways for all the different possibilities is...yeah. A non-starter. And would produce tons of bloat that's basically the same thing with small changes (which is ripe for abuse).

If it's a unified system of "here's how the world works. If you want to teleport long distances or fly, it takes this set of things", just like anyone who wants to build a plane having to deal with the same basic principles of aeronautical engineering, most of that goes away. These wouldn't be class or concept bound items--they're just part of the world. Like magic items, except not items. Anyone of sufficient soul strength (ie level) can learn to do it. You could certainly describe what you're doing differently, but you're calling the same universe-level APIs in the end, whether you're using javascript from a web browser or hand poking 0s and 1s onto the network with morse code (don't do this, please...).

MrCharlie

2022-02-18, 07:38 PM

I don't see characters that way. Me being a ranger doesn't mean I interact with the world differently (necessarily) than someone else doing the same thing. It also becomes a real problem at the game level, because it's easy for support to diverge. As it has for battlemaster maneuvers and spells. And some ways of interacting are fictionally more bound than others, which leads to the less bound ones dominating. As spells do. And let me tell you, coming up with a coherent, relatively balanced system for one basic implementation is enough work. Trying to find thematic ways for all the different possibilities is...yeah. A non-starter. And would produce tons of bloat that's basically the same thing with small changes (which is ripe for abuse).

If it's a unified system of "here's how the world works. If you want to teleport long distances or fly, it takes this set of things", just like anyone who wants to build a plane having to deal with the same basic principles of aeronautical engineering, most of that goes away. These wouldn't be class or concept bound items--they're just part of the world. Like magic items, except not items. Anyone of sufficient soul strength (ie level) can learn to do it. You could certainly describe what you're doing differently, but you're calling the same universe-level APIs in the end, whether you're using javascript from a web browser or hand poking 0s and 1s onto the network with morse code (don't do this, please...).
If class does not mean you interat with the world differently, then class is not a meaningful concept.

Which, you'll note, does not mean that the current classes are meaningful.

I think a core assumption I'm making is that there are actually only, in truth, four real classes1-everything else is a theme on that class or a gradient between classes. Thus, you need only four systems; Device, Arcane, Faith, and Skill. I think that's actually manageable, and I think that there is enough in each of those

I think I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with you in that it's worth trying to get past these issues, which are real...

...If you are more than a single person working on stuff. If there is a team of people who can come up with ideas and write content, a lot of these problems start looking less significant. You still need someone with editorial oversight who cares enough to keep a hand on things, but multiple creative efforts help a lot.

I also don't think they're insurmountable.

1 In my own attempts to re-create classes I end up with five, but that's adding a spellblade class.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-18, 07:44 PM

If class does not mean you interat with the world differently, then class is not a meaningful concept.

Which, you'll note, does not mean that the current classes are meaningful.

I think a core assumption I'm making is that there are actually only, in truth, four real classes1-everything else is a theme on that class or a gradient between classes. Thus, you need only four systems; Device, Arcane, Faith, and Skill. I think that's actually manageable, and I think that there is enough in each of those

I think I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with you in that it's worth trying to get past these issues, which are real...

...If you are more than a single person working on stuff. If there is a team of people who can come up with ideas and write content, a lot of these problems start looking less significant. You still need someone with editorial oversight who cares enough to keep a hand on things, but multiple creative efforts help a lot.

I also don't think they're insurmountable.

1 In my own attempts to re-create classes I end up with five, but that's adding a spellblade class.

You interact differently based on class, but not at a fundamental world level. Necessarily. Classes represent archetypes (or should). And there's room for more than just a couple without redoing everything from scratch.

The biggest issue is interactions. If you have N different interacting things, then there are N(N+1)/2 pairwise interactions. And even more 3+-way interactions. So balance becomes a mug's game--there will always be some broken path. That's a fundamental mathematical truth. And even small differences in implementation make huge differences when exploited.

If there's going to be a way to fly (say), there should be one fundamental way. The exact wording may differ; you may say that the summoner class conjures something to grant them a gift of air while the transmuter makes wings grow from their feet. But the mechanical implementation is the same and they share the same costs, benefits, and other pieces.

HPisBS

2022-02-19, 12:17 AM

I feel like ya'll dove waaayyy deep into the weeds when all that's really needed is "Buff martials to be capable of special thing A, B, H, L, and/or X." lol

Kane0

2022-02-19, 03:39 AM

I feel like ya'll dove waaayyy deep into the weeds when all that's really needed is "Buff martials to be capable of special thing A, B, H, L, and/or X." lol

Except many would see that as simply spells (or magic) wearing makeup. An invisible, gravity reversing knight often isnt what people want when they say 'I want my knight to remain relevant once the second half of the game hits and the mage is travelling through time, reading peoples thoughts then killing people with a flick of the wrist'

Florian

2022-02-19, 05:37 AM

I've had some ideas how to solve that, but I neither have the time nor the patience to sit down and make a full system out of it.

The biggest hurdle will not be writing the rule system, but dealing with players and their biases and preferences, tho.

Two things are based on Shadow of the Demon Lord:
Imagine a character can reach a total of 21 levels, with each class in a tier being complete in 7 levels.
Tier 1: Knight, Barbarian, Generalist Wizard, Generalist Cleric and so on.
Tier 2: Paladin, Bladesinger, Bard, Druid.....
Tier 3: Abjurer, Necromancer, Diviner...

That approach forces three points:
1) Purely mundane concepts end after Tier 1.
2) You can only reach the peak by becoming a specialist.
3) Not every concept must be viable across all tiers.

The other thought is more inspired by real world legends, but also characters like Dr. Strange and a bit by the Occultist class from Pathfinder:

Let's reduce the personal power of a class, drop the idea of generic magic items and go for more complex artefacts. For example, a Sword of Justice comes with a set of scaling powers that a more martial characxter has to grow into, while casters don't have spell slots of their own, but rather have to find and use something like the Holy Scripture of The Blessed Sun to get spells known and spell slots in healing and fire magic.

subtledoctor

2022-02-19, 01:09 PM

this means there is no room for a truly low-magic game with DnD. Nothing like Frodo's grueling march to Mount Doom, or the grounded fantasy of A Song of Ice and Fire. This is fine, because DnD isn't every game system, it's DnD. It needs to accept its core identity and move on.

I literally did the "reset my forgotten password" so I could logon to refute this, because it is nonsense. Admittedly I came up in the 2E era but it gives great examples: Dragonlance? Dark Sun? Masque of the Red Death? Read the Complete Wizard's Handbook or Creative Campaigning. Read any of the green-cover Handbooks. They're all available at DnDClassics. D&D was designed to very well support low-magic campaigns. Maybe it has to do with WotC's more limited creativity, and 3E/4E/5E made it more difficult for DMs to handle such a broad variety of campaign styles. Or maybe 3E/4E/5E players simply choose high-magic campaigning over low-magic campaigning every time (see below). But there's nothing about D&D's "core identity" that requires high-magic campaigning.

In fact high-magic campaigning introduces some difficulties into gameplay, and various supplements and discussions have noted that it takes extra work to make high-magic campaigns work well within the basic D&D rules. And lo, what do we have here, thirty years later, when people apparently assume that high-magic campaigning is D&D's "core identity?" A thousand discussions on What To Do About Wizards.

Maybe you're just not seeing the forest for the trees?

The easy answer for how to limit wizards is to not shower them with All The Magic. Make it hard to find high-level magic, make them sacrifice something to get it, make some kinds of magic usable once per campaign instead of once per rest. Make some kinds of magic preclude the use of other kinds of magic (opposition schools, etc.) Design encounters that can't be solved by spells. In short it comes down to DMing. If one player enters a campaign saying "I want to have all the best toys in the sandbox, and I want unlimited use of all such toys," then of course there is going to be a problem with wizards. Limiting that is not an unfair "nerf," it's just good DMing and setting up a harmonious table.

I think pinning the solution on magic items is the wrong way to design it. Each class should be balanced by their own merit not by what items they may or may not get.

My suggestion is give martials real high level features. Things that are on par with high level magic.

A 20th level barbarian should be able to perform massive hulk like leaps and throw a dragon overhead.

A 20th level monk has flash level speed, is immune to opportunity attacks and can skirmish across hundreds of feet in a turn.

A 20th level ranger can track creatures across multiple planes.

I hate this in principle, though admittedly the nitty-gritty of it could boil down to the simple question of how the DM wants to run a campaign. The obvious question in response is, how do those martials do such feats? The answer seems to be to be, in essence, magic. Or anyway those abilities seem superhuman, i.e. supernatural, in which case it amounts to some form of magic. And at that point you are no longer talking about "a class that does not use magic." (Barring monks, in some formulations of the class.)

I think there might be a generational gap being expressed here. To vastly simplify, it seems the older editions of RPGs set players up as ordinary people who, in the appropriate adventuring situations, do heroic things. Whereas the above suggestion, and 4E and even to some extent 5E, sets players up to have heroic abilities, and then do things with them while adventuring. I'm not saying one or the other is bad! But I think a good ruleset should not preclude either approach.

And notwithstanding that I don't personally like the approach of "just give pseudomagic to non-magical classes," I actually love this:

[Edit: it doesn't necessarily even need to feel outright supernatural.]

- Some kind of Endurance trait that makes them resistant to exhaustion.
- Maybe some Heroic Might to let them jump/push/pull/drag/lift/carry as though they were a size larger (stackable with Powerful Build).
- Or Heroic Agility to run along and jump between tree branches and other difficult footing.
- - or to grant the quickness to swing/throw/snatch something while seeming to stand still.
- - - or to make after-images.
- Maybe Heroic Reflexes could grant a second Reaction each round (¿limited to PB times / short rest?).
- Eyes of the Eagle could become an item that's actually based off of a high-level Ranger's "Eagle-eyed" vision!

... getting the right balance between "peak human" and "superman"

Right there. Let non-casters achieve "peak human" abilities (which can be truly extraordinary (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2021/5/freediver-holds-breath-for-almost-25-minutes-breaking-record-660285)). But again good DMing will really make this shine. Did you give your party's fighter or barbarian extraordinary endurance? Put them in a situation where they can shine! Make the lack of sleep or whatever cause others - especially nancy wizards - to collapse and be useless. Give the big baddie innate magic detection, so the wizard can't go invisible but the thief can still sneak. Etc.

IMHO the problem with "quadratic wizards" is simply over-adherence to RAW when the RAW have seemingly failed to handle the problem of quadratic wizards.

HPisBS

2022-02-19, 01:47 PM

I actually love this:
[Edit: it doesn't necessarily even need to feel outright supernatural.]

- Some kind of Endurance trait that makes them resistant to exhaustion.
- Maybe some Heroic Might to let them jump/push/pull/drag/lift/carry as though they were a size larger (stackable with Powerful Build).
- Or Heroic Agility to run along and jump between tree branches and other difficult footing.
- - or to grant the quickness to swing/throw/snatch something while seeming to stand still.
- - - or to make after-images.
- Maybe Heroic Reflexes could grant a second Reaction each round (¿limited to PB times / short rest?).
- Eyes of the Eagle could become an item that's actually based off of a high-level Ranger's "Eagle-eyed" vision!

... getting the right balance between "peak human" and "superman"

Right there. Let non-casters achieve "peak human" abilities (which can be truly extraordinary (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2021/5/freediver-holds-breath-for-almost-25-minutes-breaking-record-660285)). But again good DMing will really make this shine. Did you give your party's fighter or barbarian extraordinary endurance? Put them in a situation where they can shine! Make the lack of sleep or whatever cause others - especially nancy wizards - to collapse and be useless. Give the big baddie innate magic detection, so the wizard can't go invisible but the thief can still sneak. Etc.

IMHO the problem with "quadratic wizards" is simply over-adherence to RAW when the RAW have seemingly failed to handle the problem of quadratic wizards.

I'm glad someone appreciated it :smallsmile:

Plus, you saved me having to remind Kane0 that that's the kind of "special thing __" I was referring to. lol

MrCharlie

2022-02-19, 02:01 PM

I literally did the "reset my forgotten password" so I could logon to refute this, because it is nonsense. Admittedly I came up in the 2E era but it gives great examples: Dragonlance? Dark Sun? Masque of the Red Death? Read the Complete Wizard's Handbook or Creative Campaigning. Read any of the green-cover Handbooks. They're all available at DnDClassics. D&D was designed to very well support low-magic campaigns. Maybe it has to do with WotC's more limited creativity, and 3E/4E/5E made it more difficult for DMs to handle such a broad variety of campaign styles. Or maybe 3E/4E/5E players simply choose high-magic campaigning over low-magic campaigning every time (see below). But there's nothing about D&D's "core identity" that requires high-magic campaigning.

In fact high-magic campaigning introduces some difficulties into gameplay, and various supplements and discussions have noted that it takes extra work to make high-magic campaigns work well within the basic D&D rules. And lo, what do we have here, thirty years later, when people apparently assume that high-magic campaigning is D&D's "core identity?" A thousand discussions on What To Do About Wizards.

Maybe you're just not seeing the forest for the trees?

The easy answer for how to limit wizards is to not shower them with All The Magic. Make it hard to find high-level magic, make them sacrifice something to get it, make some kinds of magic usable once per campaign instead of once per rest. Make some kinds of magic preclude the use of other kinds of magic (opposition schools, etc.) Design encounters that can't be solved by spells. In short it comes down to DMing. If one player enters a campaign saying "I want to have all t he best toys in the sandbox, and I want unlimited use of all such toys," then of course there is going to be a problem with wizards. Limiting that is not an unfair "nerf," it's just good DMing and setting up a harmonious table.

I should clarify that I mean modern DnD. But even within the context of 2e, the ship had sailed.

It's pure nostalgia to think that any of the means of limiting spellcasters had a meaningful impact. Sure, early levels, mages were made of tissue paper. Late levels? Flying artillery that can literally turn 2d and avoid attacks. Even if the base spells were balanced (they were not) the spell bloat had the exact same impact. Third edition just started where second ended, and kept going.

Opposition schools? Avoid the bad schools, and pick stuff like conjuration to specialize. Encounters that can't be solved by spells? Unless it's by flat out antimagic, the encounter probably can't be solved at all now. It was trivially easy to end up with arbitrarily high amounts of spells and abilities, simply by playing within the rules.

The quadratic wizard trend was codified in 3e, but existed in 2e. It's just that 3e coincided with an era of the internet where people could communicate more clearly, and the metagame of DnD began to exist, showing everyone how casters dominated...and 3e was even worse than 2e.

DnD was never designed for grounded, low-level fantasy, and fighters (or fighting men) have always been disadvantaged by it. The spell system is too powerful, the tools which fighters had too limited, to keep the game "balanced".

It did try. It tried a lot. You're right that some settings got closer, but mostly by virtue of completely changing the actual rules, and effectively being different games. If we're allowing those as "DnD", then D20 star wars is "DnD" by virtue of using basically the same system. In that sense, there are 100% settings that solve the caster problem, either by not having traditional casters, neutering spells, introducing modern tech or magitech, or otherwise changing the rules. It is entirely possible to redesign DnD to bring spellcasters down and impose actual class parity.

It's just that this version of DnD never actually existed, at least not as the main product line.

Masque of the Red Death is a good example. It was much closer, by virtue of doing the full spectrum spell, class, and setting re-write I'm talking about, and having a more modern tech level that cut down on the mastery of spells. Masque is arguably a spin-off in the same way Starfinder is a spin-off to Pathfinder-they rhyme, but are different games.

But as long as the actual core rulebook classes are written with our current spellcasting rules and power-level of spell, it's actively hostile to low-magic settings. And the last time they tried to nerf spells people hated it-and while that is mostly because 4e was shockingly incompetent, it's solidified that the game is not moving in the low-magic direction. 1

My point is that, within that framework, they should just write fighters as superhuman and get it over with. If they want to make spellcasters grounded with powers that are more limited and controllable, that's perfectly fine, but it's not in line with the popular editions of DnD. Until they do, we're going to have these threads every edition.

1I mean, 4e had other aspirations, don't get me wrong, but a major complaint was "You took our wizards away and made everyone the same!" and the WOTC team reversed direction. Given that reversal, they are extremely unlikely to move back to bend the spell system anywhere near the degree that they did in 4e, so it's here to stay and the problem is therefore eternal, at least within the core books.

Aalbatr0ss

2022-02-19, 06:56 PM

It's pure nostalgia to think that any of the means of limiting spellcasters had a meaningful impact.

I find this confusing. There is absolutely nothing stopping a table sitting down in session 0 and agreeing to a set of low magic ground rules. You could literally have a “just battlemasters” campaign. I’d play. It would probably be really good in the right hands.

clash

2022-02-19, 07:58 PM

I hate this in principle, though admittedly the nitty-gritty of it could boil down to the simple question of how the DM wants to run a campaign. The obvious question in response is, how do those martials do such feats? The answer seems to be to be, in essence, magic. Or anyway those abilities seem superhuman, i.e. supernatural, in which case it amounts to some form of magic. And at that point you are no longer talking about "a class that does not use magic." (Barring monks, in some formulations of the class.)

I think there might be a generational gap being expressed here. To vastly simplify, it seems the older editions of RPGs set players up as ordinary people who, in the appropriate adventuring situations, do heroic things. Whereas the above suggestion, and 4E and even to some extent 5E, sets players up to have heroic abilities, and then do things with them while adventuring. I'm not saying one or the other is bad! But I think a good ruleset should not preclude either approach.

And notwithstanding that I don't personally like the approach of "just give pseudomagic to non-magical classes," I actually love this:

Sure there's a place for playing an ordinary guy in d&d but tier 4 isn't it. Anyone in tier 4 isn't normal anymore. They are legendary at that point so if you want to play tier 4 you don't want to play an ordinary guy. Ordinary guys don't take on demi gods and kaijus. You are in the best of the best in a world included with those with extremely powerful magic. You're not ordinary in tier 4 by definition.

Schwann145

2022-02-20, 12:17 AM

I'm gonna assume you want to have the frank conversation:

If power balance between magic and non-magic is a concern for you, you need to find another game; something like Pathfinder 2e or D&D 4e.
It is very clear that the design intent in D&D, as it exists now, is that magic is supposed to outpace non-magic. The devs even did a hard double-down on this when they decided magic items should be super-duper rare and no longer possible to craft.
It's not the answer anyone wants to hear... but it's the truth.

Now, because that's the truth, I had to start with it, but because it's not really productive for discussion, let's move on as if changing this was actually more than a pipe dream, lol.
Unfortunately, we have to start with more bad news:

The best way to address balance concerns would be to totally rebuild the way both combat and magic (at least as far as rote spells go) works.
D&D 5e combat suffers from being very very boring; essentially just math homework with minimal, sometimes zero, player engagement.
You just don't have anything interesting to do. You roll a die, see if the math is in your favor, and do a lil more math if it is until you win and don't have to do math anymore. You have no real control over the narrative of the combat because the combat narrative is not part of the game mechanically; it's an afterthought.
Summary: In order to make the mundane game interesting, you have to give players interesting mechanics to play with, and those just don't exist, and the system makes no room for that.

Magic has the exact opposite problem: it's too "interesting!" Magic spells just... solve problems. Again, with basically zero player engagement. You simply cast the "solve" spell, and move on, problem handled. To fix this, we really have to tear down the current spell lists, or even how spells are cast, and rebuild it from the ground up. There are any number of ways you could do this (personally, I loved the mechanics of epic spells from 3rd edition - spell seeds and spellcraft rolls and researching your own spells from the ground up and casting checks to see how well [or poorly] your spell goes - lots of player engagement with the game), but the important thing is that you shouldn't be able to just say, "I cast X" and have your problem solved for you. It's too powerful. It's too boring.

Now, of course, none of the above will ever happen. It involves massive design changes and a willingness to slay sacred cows, and history has shown exactly what happens when D&D is brave enough to do that - it's stock value plummets as some company like Paizo comes up and steals their playerbase. Because nothing sells better than rose-tinted glasses, and the majority of the D&D audience is very unwilling to accept change, even if it's for the better.
"It's not D&D anymore!"
Meh, I say! But profits and losses don't lie.

So! Since the correct answer of playing a different game avoids the discussion, and the next best answer of redesigning the game is totally, utterly, off the table, I guess it's time to look at the worst option - tweaking!
But, we can't talk about tweaking the rules until we discuss what the game should be:
Some people want Tier3-4 mundanes to be superheroes. Some people absolutely don't.

People like to make the complaint that high level casters can do basically anything they want, so high level mundanes should be brought up to par. If the Wizard can cast Wish and Simulacrum and Plane Shift, then the Barbarian should be the equivalent of the Hulk, right?
Except this isn't an honest comparison. It would be if your Wizard was more like Dr. Strange, who can cast Wish and Simulacrum and Plane Shift over and over, as much as they want... But that's not what your Wizard can do. Your Wizard can (sometimes) cast X, Y, or Z powerful spell (a very few, probably only one) time per day. Meanwhile the Hulk is just always... the Hulk.
You cannot ignore the limitations of spell slots, but 99% of these discussions absolutely ignore the limitations of spell slots. The high level Wizard is not the God everyone makes it out to be. The high level Wizard is a puny (ie: d6 HD) guy or gal in a bathrobe that can *sometimes* shake the world with a spell. But most of the time, and unless they're specifically casting, they're just a puny guy or gal in a bathrobe. The mundane fighty classes are always more than puny (higher HP, better physical scores, etc), and always have better outfits than a bathrobe (better access to weapons and armor, easier time keeping a higher AC, etc).

Now I know what you're thinking - "Hey, but 5e makes it super easy for spellcasters to get more HP, and better AC, and they have more consistent staying power than ever before!"
And you'd be right! They really probably shouldn't have allowed for all that. But in 5e, "rule of cool" is way more important than balance and "fairness."
And remember, we already covered how this is an intentional developer design decision. Magic classes are supposed to be better than non magic classes, and anything that would close the gap, like magic items, has been severely reduced and/or nerfed. On purpose.
So if you want to play the game that doesn't do that... you have to go to different game designers.

Thank you for coming to my TedTalk!

Now that my big ol' speech is out of the way, here's a few tweaks that are pretty easy to suggest, as well as some general thoughts:
•Erase the Battle Master subclass and just roll it's maneuvers into every fighter - or better yet, just give them to every class. Yay, now everyone has *something to do* in combat!
•Eliminate Wish: Not entirely though. Rename it "Anyspell" (like the old 2e version) and only keep the "can cast any spell of 8th level or lower," bit. This keeps its power in line with the other 9th level spells. All of the other options should not be available just willy-nilly to a player and should be plot devices or things the entire group quests for.
•Make Simulacrum eat the spell slot used to cast it: Honestly, the fear of this spell is 99% napkin math and DMs being too lenient. It's a 12 hour cast, costs 1500gp in materials minimum per cast, and requires a boatload of snow or ice (which isn't always possible depending on your location). But, if you're still super worried about it, another restriction is fine, and occupying the spell slot while a current simulacrum exists seems like a good one. In other words, you won't recover your spell slot used to cast Sim until your current Sim ends/is destroyed. And obv you wouldn't get the slot back immediately - you'd still have to rest.
•Plane Shift, Astral Projection, etc don't make you powerful, calm down: Yes, technically spells like this support the idea that casters are just way more better than non-casters, but let's be a little real - these spells are plot devices, not power. A player having access to spells like this is a better tool for the DM than it is for the player.
•Make magic items less rare: The design philosophy of 5e is that magic items are super duper rare and you may never even see one. F that! Like I alluded to above, magic items are how mundane characters keep/catch up with spellcasters. Crippling their access to magic is unnecessarily unbalancing. The days of 3rd edition Christmas trees was a bit embarrassing, but it doesn't have to go that far. Don't be afraid to equip your players with magic!

Schwann145

2022-02-20, 12:19 AM

Ordinary guys don't take on demi gods and kaijus.

Yes they do. That's what makes them heroes!

subtledoctor

2022-02-20, 12:37 AM

But as long as the actual core rulebook classes are written with our current spellcasting rules and power-level of spell, it's actively hostile to low-magic settings. And the last time they tried to nerf spells people hated it-and while that is mostly because 4e was shockingly incompetent, it's solidified that the game is not moving in the low-magic direction.

It's not a board game. It's not a computer game. You don't roll the dice and land on the Wish scroll the way you land on Free Parking in Monopoly. It's a role-playing game. The book rules can say all sorts of stuff as to how the D&D multiverse works. But they do not control how things work in any given little corner of that multiverse. The rules you play by are whatever a table agrees the rules are.

I find this confusing. There is absolutely nothing stopping a table sitting down in session 0 and agreeing to a set of low magic ground rules. You could literally have a “just battlemasters” campaign. I’d play. It would probably be really good in the right hands.

This. Again, there are literally D&D rulebooks written about exactly this. There are stuff about running an all-bards campaign, or an all-paladins campaign. Cripes, D&D codified Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, where the PCs are a barbarian and a mage->thief - literally the least optimal dual-class combination in history.

The fact that you've never considered how to have fun with a version of the game that doesn't involve 9th-level magic doesn't mean that version of the game isn't 100% in D&D's DNA.

EDIT - as for how to treat Wish, for the answer to that go listen to the Sneak Attack! podcast. I won't give anything away except to say that they handled the Wish spell really, really well.

Kane0

2022-02-20, 01:15 AM

•Make magic items less rare: The design philosophy of 5e is that magic items are super duper rare and you may never even see one. F that! Like I alluded to above, magic items are how mundane characters keep/catch up with spellcasters. Crippling their access to magic is unnecessarily unbalancing. The days of 3rd edition Christmas trees was a bit embarrassing, but it doesn't have to go that far. Don't be afraid to equip your players with magic!

I would add the caveat of not being as numerous/beneficial for casters as they are for martials, otherwise they both benefit to mostly the same degree and the status quo doesnt change.

AdAstra

2022-02-20, 04:43 AM

I think particularly, more magical (or even mundane) utility items would do a fair bit to increase the breadth of options available to martials without boosting casters as much in most cases. Often a bit of a headache if you have too many edge cases or effects that are hard to evaluate (usually easier to judge hard numbers), but still, probably worth it. The more clever things that can be done without needing to be a spellcaster, the easier it is to be a martial and feel able to contribute out of combat, which is usually where you see the most dissatisfaction. Of course, do need to ensure that martials investing in utility items doesn't hamstring them in combat, and ensure that mundane skills/tools aren't completely obsoleted to preserve the value of classes with skills in mind. Shouldn't have to sacrifice your flaming longsword so that you can still breath underwater for the underwater dungeon. So probably need to balance the costs (or attunement slots, or whatever) appropriately. Like utility items cost x1, weapons cost x2, things that boost magic cost x3, along those lines. Increase the number of attunement slots, and have different types of items take up different amounts of them.

More Folding Boats and the like would be good. Things that just replicate spells less so, but it's easy to do.

Personally, weaker spells would be fine by me as well.

clash

2022-02-20, 08:35 AM

Yes they do. That's what makes them heroes!

I'm trying to understand this position but it seems like a problem that doesn't want to be solved and doesn't match the lore.

1. I want to play high level aka be in the most powerful .01% of the population in the world
2. But I still want to be an ordinary guy
3. I want to be just as powerful as those around me

It's an argument that doesn't compute. If you want to be an ordinary guy among legends d&d has given us that and it is disappointing. That's what this entire thread is about. Either you want to be ordinary or you want to be as strong and versatile as those who aren't. You can't have it both ways.

subtledoctor

2022-02-20, 02:33 PM

HPisBS

2022-02-20, 02:49 PM

Does Hawkeye have no place in a group with Doctor Strange? Or Captain America, or the Black Widow? I don't know that comics that well but a cursory search reveals that various writers have written very interesting and engaging stories about them, so clearly there is fun to be had in such roles.

This is what I don't get. D&D has given this to us and it is not disappointing at all - it can be super fun. Either a) you missed the fun parts, or b) you just don't or can't find that fun.

If it's a), then this can be solved by seeking out a broader variety of materials; if it's b) then this can be solved by realizing that other people are not necessarily constrained by your preferences...

But if it's a) - if you just can imagine having a fun game of D&D in which wizards are prevented from getting All The Magic, then I think you just resign yourself to a game in which there is a problematic imbalance between linear warriors and quadratic wizards. In other words there are clear answers to that problem, but if none of the answers are to your satisfaction, then the problem will never be solved to your satisfaction.

Even "normal guy" Hawkeye has super accuracy (shown to accurately shoot enemies even while his head is turned the other way) and "peak human" cqc, not to mention his Quiver of Gadget Arrows that only ever runs empty when the plot wants some extra tension. lol

There is a place for normal guy: he's right at home in tier 1 and even tier 2. After that, though, he starts to feel comparatively ordinary. Comparatively lame. DPR-wise, he can be relatively fine with the right magic item support (or even without that, if the adventuring day is drawn out long enough). But he still tends to lack interesting options in combat. His out-of-combat contributions tend to fare even worse.

That's why there's so many calls for stuff like Eagle-Eyed Ranger vision, super leaps on Barbarians (which one subclass sorta gets, iirc), etc. They don't necessarily need extra damage, just cool abilities that help them feel like they're still the casters' equals as they all move into tier 3 and 4.

-- Making Maneuvers into a universal martial mechanic would help a lot, but martials would still feel overshadowed by casters in late game. Tier 3+, casters are warping the party between continents faster than you can say "Diagon Alley," while the Fighters are... looking for something to hit?

Schwann145

2022-02-20, 03:44 PM

I'm trying to understand this position but it seems like a problem that doesn't want to be solved and doesn't match the lore.

1. I want to play high level aka be in the most powerful .01% of the population in the world
2. But I still want to be an ordinary guy
3. I want to be just as powerful as those around me

It's an argument that doesn't compute. If you want to be an ordinary guy among legends d&d has given us that and it is disappointing. That's what this entire thread is about. Either you want to be ordinary or you want to be as strong and versatile as those who aren't. You can't have it both ways.

It's just a matter of fundamental disagreements on specific points. For instance:

1. I want to play high level (yes, true) aka be in the most powerful .01% of the population in the world (no, untrue. If I'm that powerful, then the game is effectively over and it's time to create a new character - that's boring to me. If I'm Hercules, then I can't lose and if I can't lose, that's not fun as a game to me).
2. But I still want to be an ordinary guy (Depends entirely on your definition of ordinary. You don't need superpowers to qualify for the tier4 justifications. You can affect entire nations with charisma and politics, after all.)
3. I want to be just as powerful as those around me (Again, depends. I want to be powerful enough to stand a chance against powerful and terrifying foes, true. But I don't need to be as or more powerful than those foes to defeat them.)

I want to be an ordinary guy because, at least with the way I roleplay, I play a person first, character second. And Hercules didn't "become" powerful - he was Hercules from level 1. Superman didn't "become" powerful - he was powerful from level 1. The Hulk didn't grow into a powerful character over time and effort - they went from 1 to a billion overnight.
I can think of zero examples of martial heroes that trained their way into tier4 levels of power. I can think of magicians who did... but not martials. Just One Punch Man. :P

HPisBS

2022-02-20, 04:10 PM

I can think of zero examples of martial heroes that trained their way into tier4 levels of power. I can think of magicians who did... but not martials. Just One Punch Man. :P

Goku? (Or most of the side characters in DBZ.)

Gon? (from Hunter x Hunter)

Iron Fist? (I think. What little I know of him is just from Death Battle.)

Slade Wilson? [Edit: Training, then super soldier serum. So... asterisk?]

Iron Man? (He'd be the Artificer who constantly upgrades his armor. So, half-caster.)

Eragon? (He starts as a normal hunter [ranger], and the first two novels are largely about him training in the sword and magic to become a Dragon Rider.)

Heck, Deku from My Hero Academia fits pretty well. (His training is to control the power he already has, rather than to obtain new power, but still.)

The best representation of the power level people are looking for in late-game martials may actually be Kenichi: the Mightiest Disciple. Much of that series is focused on training, and the martial arts masters who train Kenichi are shown to be amazingly strong, fast, and even to be able to see great distances, somehow. (All without any chi, ki, or chakra plot points, afaik.)

Amnestic

2022-02-20, 04:22 PM

I can think of zero examples of martial heroes that trained their way into tier4 levels of power. I can think of magicians who did... but not martials. Just One Punch Man. :P

Irori from the Pathfinder setting supposedly trained his body+mind (monkstyle) so hard and so well that he attained divinity, which is...I guess Tier X? Tier Ω? Tier ∞?

Rock Lee from the Naruto series is also a fine example of this, though Guy fits as well. While every other ninja is a wizard in disguise, Lee and Guy stay true to their ninja monk ways.

Schwann145

2022-02-20, 05:41 PM

HPisBS

2022-02-20, 06:42 PM

Fair enough, anime provides examples.
However, it's still an "off" comparison in my opinion. After all, what makes those melee characters keep up? 1) A lack of magical "caster" characters (very little mixing in my anime experience), and 2) their techniques are just magic by another name. Like Amnestic says above, the vast majority of Naruto shinobi are just "wizards in disguise." Even Lee and Gai are the same (the Gates are just as "magical" as Ninjutsu, even if they're a different power source).

Which is why I called out Kenichi so much; the super-human physique in Kenichi is just that: physique. No spiritual / magical / whatever to it, just hard, grueling physical training.

Either way though, Monks and half of the martial subclasses are magical without using spells, so non-casting martial characters like Lee and Guy are perfectly appropriate comparisons.

Some people want to play Gimli. It's silly to say Gimli should be left behind, forgotten to time, because Gimli can't keep up with Gandalf.

Gimli can be Gandalf's sidekick. There's even a thread on such things going right now.

Otherwise, Gimli should either be left behind back at the end of tier 2 after the party starts Disintegrating otherworldly horrors, or, preferably, Gimli should hit the gym, get some (nearly?) superhuman capabilities, and find a way to not feel like a glorified meatshield.

Kane0

2022-02-20, 07:35 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-20, 08:14 PM

Makes me think of Sokka vs the rest of team avatar, Piandao vs the rest of the White Lotus and Ty Lee/Mai vs Azula.

They are still narratively relevant but it is acknowledged that they mostly arent on the same level. Hell there are even scenes and and entire episode pretty much centered on that.

Works great in a piece of pre-plotted fiction. Not so good when you've got a group game and one person is relegated to be the party's sidekick and comic relief just by what class they chose.

-----

Maybe the solution is to not let casters scale that bad? There are no issues if at the top end the expectation isn't "throwing down with demigods on the regular." Return the Tarrasque and other CR 20+ creatures to their rightful place as "major threats that it takes a prepared party and luck to handle, expending most of their resources" instead of "ehh, that's one of 6 or so of those we'll kill today before we're actually challenged." In that regime, everybody has a place and there's no thematic or narrative reason why non-casters can't keep up. "Casts spells" doesn't have to mean "has unlimited cosmic power" after all. THat's a 3e-ism that doesn't need to stick around.

On the flip side, I'm not a fan of the "I'm just a regular joe" character. D&D PCs are already a cut above the norm at level 1. And I'm totally fine with everyone in a fantastic world with background magic permeating everything (the standard for D&D in 5e) to be fantastic and have "magic" power. But that power doesn't have to come from spells. And doesn't have to be big flashy "cut the mountain apart when I miss" or "cut holes in reality with my sword" stuff.

Schwann145

2022-02-20, 09:27 PM

I'd kind of love to see the spellcaster group that just manhandles tier 4 gameplay. It's talked about all the time but I've never seen it in action.

I have a hypothesis that this theoretical game has more to do with DMing style and less to do with unstoppable spell power, but I'll never know until I see it.

Warwick

2022-02-20, 09:29 PM

Kane0

2022-02-20, 09:33 PM

One of the problems with emulating Sokka from a TTRPG perspective is that his 'role' on the team is being smarter and better at planning than his superpowered companions, but that's not really something you make a class feature.

As evidenced by the Keen mind feat. Could have maybe worked on some exploration aspects as he was the mapper and sailor as well. Leadership being different from talky skills too perhaps.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-20, 09:39 PM

As evidenced by the Keen mind feat. Could have maybe worked on some exploration aspects as he was the mapper and sailor as well. Leadership being different from talky skills too perhaps.

Sounds like a great NPC. Not an equal partner in a D&D group.

Kane0

2022-02-20, 10:10 PM

Sounds like a great NPC. Not an equal partner in a D&D group.

Sadly so, because D&D does tend to have a bit of a narrow focus and handwave the rest.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-20, 10:22 PM

Sadly so, because D&D does tend to have a bit of a narrow focus and handwave the rest.

If the party is a group of special forces operatives, then someone who can't fight and can't really sneak and can't really do anything of field value but can read maps well and strategize has a place. Back home in the base, doing coordination and dispatch. That's not a narrow focus, that's just facts on the ground when you're dealing with a tactical team who expects to spend at least a good chunk of each mission in hazardous territory. There's no room for a Load; everyone should pull their weight in all aspects.

Sure, the current meta makes casters too good (they can do other people's job as well as they can for minimal sacrifices, plus do things the others can't even attempt), but the solution to that is to make them stop doing that. Instead of making everyone quadratic or deciding that only quadratic people can play a substantial chunk of the game after a certain point, make it so everyone scales approximately linearly.

AntiAuthority

2022-02-20, 10:27 PM

This topic is linked to D&D on a fundamental level it seems. While I do believe martials becoming god-like as they level up would help solve a lot of issues, that would alienate other players who want to be a Badass Normal... Some thoughts.

I understand wanting to not play some larger than life god of combat. It's not everyone's cup of tea. Some point just want to play Batman, Hawkeye or Captain America. That's fine. But Batman, Hawkeye and Cap never try to 1v1 Darkseid or Thanos, and if they do, it's a last resort type of thing because they would get pasted if the BBEG hits them with a direct blow. There are ways to get around this though. One option is you can play an under leveled (say, Level 6) vs an overwhelmingly powerful BBEG (say, Level 19) to simulate the "normal guy facing overwhelming odds" aspect, as from a mechanics and storytelling viewpoint the character is at a massive disadvantage. Another option (while keeping the Level 20 is peak human paradigm) is to try to replicate the tropes of this by giving the martial characters more tools to solve the issue... So one comic saw Batman defeating Darkseid, not through brute strength or superior fighting skills, he instead hacked alien technology to activate planet destroying bombs and threatened to set them off (on Darkseid's home world) if Darkseif didn't comply with his demands... This sounds like Proficiency to me, especially the hacking alien-god tech in such a short amount of time. Cap also has his moments, as during a Marvel DC crossover, Cap was made the leader because he's probably the best tactician to help make use of everyone's abilities. This method would involve the ordinary characters not getting into a slugfest with someone who could kill them by breathing too hard, and shows that while the character isn't exploding buildings with their punches, are capable of incredible feats of will and intellect. Another option to keep them normal human is to draw on this archetype by making it a class feature to gain some (possibly unique) item(s)... So Cap has his indestructible shield, Hawkeye has his various arrows and Batman has infinite wealth er, I mean his utility belt, Batsuit and the occasional mech suits he builds for superhuman enemies. Probably more I'm unaware of, but feel free to add onto this if anyone feels like it.

Now, onto Hercules, Superman and Hulk being born strong/suddenly gaining their power? while magic users sometimes train to get to that level of power... The reason for that is actually a good reason for why martials should be capable of becoming like those characters. Essentially, casters and martials both were (even if indirectly) inspired by mythological characters like Zeus, Hercules, Odin and Thor. All of them had divinity in some form, but the modern depictions need justifications for warriors while casters don't need the same power source as their original inspirations. Only one side got pulled from mythology essentially, with the reason being that people wrote them that way.

Now about the thing about martials doing things that are magic by any other name aspect... It's complicated to put it mildly. But in the past, there wasn't such a hard divide between mundane, supernatural and magic like there is in fiction today. If anyone's interested, I could point out a few cases in mythology, folklore and fiction where the lines were blurred to say the least.

This is a long way of saying there's no reason to disallow fantastic (or supernatural if you want to call them that) martials beyond preference. The only reason this is an issue is because the warrior side of it wasn't shown as much love as the magic side in modern fiction when people wrote stories, while both have the same roots.

Schwann145

2022-02-20, 10:38 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-20, 10:46 PM

Kane0

2022-02-20, 10:55 PM

If the party is a group of special forces operatives
Yeah sorry that's what I was referring to. That is the position D&D largely takes, parties are swat teams and adventures are based around that with the rest as more or less a backdrop, or secondary concern at best.

Sure, the current meta makes casters too good (they can do other people's job as well as they can for minimal sacrifices, plus do things the others can't even attempt), but the solution to that is to make them stop doing that. Instead of making everyone quadratic or deciding that only quadratic people can play a substantial chunk of the game after a certain point, make it so everyone scales approximately linearly.
Agreed, like I suggested on page 1 bouncing off of Marcloure's post. Casters either gain more spells in either quality or quantity, but not both. You can even differentiate casters between the two, as long as its one or the other.

HPisBS

2022-02-20, 11:17 PM

Exactly. The solution is to stop people from being Dr Strange at all. The game would be much better by capping things at more sane levels for everyone and breaking the quadratic nature entirely.

Sounds like we have an impasse.

Apparently, D&D needs to split into "Super D&D" and "Muggle D&D."
Edit:

Super D&D maybe tweaks some OP spells like Simulacrum, and gives high-level martials Heroic Feats like eagle vision, super jumps, and after-images.
Muggle D&D turns full casters into half-casters, half-casters into one-third-casters, and martials with magical subclasses are Magic Initiates who maybe dabble in alchemy.

rel

2022-02-20, 11:26 PM

Remember that D&D magic is higher in power level than the magic available in any unrelated high fantasy universe.
In fact, D&D magic is so strong that a party of 10th level magic users could reliably solve the big intractable problems of most other high fantasy settings on their weekend off.

If you plan to play a game of D&D from level 1 to level 20 then you can't emulate very many non D&D worlds or stories without extensive changes to the rules as written.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-20, 11:27 PM

Sounds like we have an impasse.

Apparently, D&D needs to split into "Super D&D" and "Muggle D&D."

D&D 5e has never claimed to handle the Dr Strange case. It's grown out of people's optimization and DMs being willing to shower people in specific items. Those CR 20+ creatures are supposed to be serious threats to the average party, not pushovers you fight 6+ of in a day and are only mildly stretched. So I think my version is a lot closer to the design intent.

HPisBS

2022-02-20, 11:32 PM

AntiAuthority

2022-02-20, 11:33 PM

Something to keep in mind:
Dr. Strange beats the Hulk in 99 out of 100 matchups.

So if the solution to "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards" is to bring the martials up to superhero levels of power - the Wizard still wins. Except now people who don't want to be superheroes don't have a game anymore.

Dr. Strange wins because the writer wanted him to. Much like how Superman Prime would wreck most magic users in DC.

There's no reason for Magic Users or Martials to always win or lose beyond whoever's writing the story.

There's a difference between using something as inspiration and having it be a 1:1 copy.

And there are people who don't want their Book 1 Harry Potter to become someone as powerful as Dr. Strange or Ainz Ooal Gown by the end. What about those that feel their Level 20 magic user shouldn't be able to hang out with (or surpass) mythological gods? Shouldn't they also have the option to not become literal gods of destruction at that point? The problem goes both ways and requires attention to both sides.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-20, 11:39 PM

Pretty sure the Astral Projection spell was specifically inspired by Dr Strange lol

D&D was inspired by lots of things. Doesn't make it intended to emulate those.

Dr. Strange wins because the writer wanted him to. Much like how Superman Prime would wreck most magic users in DC.

There's no reason for Magic Users or Martials to always win or lose beyond whoever's writing the story.

There's a difference between using something as inspiration and having it be a 1:1 copy.

Exactly. Magic is only more powerful if we decide it has to be. There's no definitional reason it has to. In fact, in most stories, magic is routinely beaten by guys with sharp pointy things. Even in very high-magic settings. CF Brust's Taltos novels, where a catch phrase is "No matter how subtle the sorcerer, a knife between the shoulderblades seriously cramps his style" and the protagonists usually resort to swinging weapons (including very highly enchanted ones). One of the key points of one of hte books is that war magic doesn't actually do much, since both sides have it. So it comes down to people with pointy weapons.

In the classic fiction D&D was based on, most of the time, the wizards were either
a) supporting cast
b) the bad guys who got defeated by the heros.

They're rarely the main characters. Yes, even Gandalf wasn't a main character. He was supporting cast. And rarely actually did magic.

Schwann145

2022-02-20, 11:47 PM

Exactly. Magic is only more powerful if we decide it has to be. There's no definitional reason it has to. In fact, in most stories, magic is routinely beaten by guys with sharp pointy things. Even in very high-magic settings. CF Brust's Taltos novels, where a catch phrase is "No matter how subtle the sorcerer, a knife between the shoulderblades seriously cramps his style" and the protagonists usually resort to swinging weapons (including very highly enchanted ones). One of the key points of one of hte books is that war magic doesn't actually do much, since both sides have it. So it comes down to people with pointy weapons.

In the classic fiction D&D was based on, most of the time, the wizards were either
a) supporting cast
b) the bad guys who got defeated by the heros.

They're rarely the main characters. Yes, even Gandalf wasn't a main character. He was supporting cast. And rarely actually did magic.

Very true! I blame "sore-loser" players and "rule of cool" abuse for how out of hand magic/spells have gotten. :P
People need to learn to be okay with bad things happening to their characters, and DMs saying "no" sometimes.

sithlordnergal

2022-02-21, 01:15 AM

D&D 5e has never claimed to handle the Dr Strange case. It's grown out of people's optimization and DMs being willing to shower people in specific items. Those CR 20+ creatures are supposed to be serious threats to the average party, not pushovers you fight 6+ of in a day and are only mildly stretched. So I think my version is a lot closer to the design intent.

I disagree. If it is as you say and 5e never claimed to handle the Dr. Strange case then you wouldn't have spells like:

- Simulacrum
- Wish
-Forcecage
-Feeblemind
-Etherealness
-Reverse Gravity
-Mind Blank
-Maze
-Prismatic Wall
-Gate
-True Polymorph
ect.

You also wouldn't have things like the Moon Druid, Abjuration or Divination Wizards, or the Paladin at all. Three of whom can do the Hulk's job but better. Monks wouldn't be profient in every save, have a spammable Stun, and d10 magical attack as a base thing. The game was set up to have that dynamic of Dr. Strange being stronger than the Hulk 9 out of 10 times once you reach Dr. Strange's level. I actually think your version is far below the design intent of 5e as a whole. I'll fully admit my version is a lot higher due to a strong focus on optimization that I encourage via my encounter design, but I don't think its as low as what you think it is. Your standard, average party is generally going to find those CR 20+ threats a pushover, unless the players lack proficiency in the system.

Florian

2022-02-21, 05:56 AM

Basic conflict based on incompatible interests.

We will always turn in endless circles when we approach the topic like this:
- We first model physical reality
- We then add magical reality on top
- Then we want things based on physical reality to be euqal to magical reality.

I would say, part of the whole issue is that D&D/Pathfinder and some others are in a certain way dishonest (or rather, very misleading): As each and every class and option is presented in the same format and have equivalent cost, that gives the impression of things being "equal" and "balanced".

A lvl 13 Fighter in a group with Ranger, Rogue, Bard and Paladin performs quite well and has no problems. Wanting that same Fighter to perform equally well in a group with Wizard, Warlock, Cleric and Bard is intelectually dishonest, tho, as those classed wield magic and magic is supposed to be more powerful than anything modelled based on physical reality.

I already pointed out the udnerlying model used by SotDL as an example:
Fighter > Paladin > Theurgy Magic
Wizard > Warlock > Hell Magic

Both follow the same pattern by starting out as a generalist in their class, reach the end of advancement there, have to focus more and more.

Another example how to handle it would be SM: That's a skill-based game with the schools of magic also being individual skills that have to be bought and trained. The system uses power points, which can either be used or locked, which makes magic feel very different compared to, say, D&D or Pathfinder.

The difference between Fighter and Wizard in this system is basically the difference between "locked" and "open" spell points and it affects how characters are handled, their look and feel drastically.

Let's look at two humans with the exact same training in three schools of magic, Abjuration, Light and Protection and with the same amount of focus points:

The "Wizard" will have Aura of Sunlight and Mage armor locked, but has more than enough open and flexible spell slots to cast a lot of powerful but instant/short term spells in combat, like Prismatic Ray, Wall of Force.

The "Fighter" will have nearly all of his points locked into things like Weapon of Light, Armor of the Gods, Spellbreaker Shield, Aura of Steel.

Both are using powerful magic, but our "Fighter" feels "mundane" because the spells enhance and support his "mundane" options.

Angelalex242

2022-02-21, 07:35 AM

Well, Kinda.

Paladins are the only heavy class that has any business playing with full spellcasters.

And that's mostly because he's a half caster than has the best DPS in the game, and has a lot of defensive auras to boot.

Hence, if King Arthur the Ancients Paladin with his trademark Holy Avenger named Excalibur has to pick a fight with Merlin, he's probably okay.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 10:41 AM

Amnestic

2022-02-21, 11:30 AM

[1] and yes, it is wizards. They're the ones with all the broken spells, and theirs is the identity which consists of "I'm the most powerful because I have all the spells" and nothing more. So wizards can't survive a blow to their supremacy, because that's the only identity they have. Being the best at everything because they're wizards.

Earlier today I was thinking of how to turn Wizards into a half caster class, what sorts of features they might have, and so far I'm struggling for this exact reason. I'm sure it can be done, but it's definitely going to take more brain energy required than turning bard (more songs) or warlock (more invocations/pact boon features) into a half-caster.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 11:33 AM

Earlier today I was thinking of how to turn Wizards into a half caster class, what sorts of features they might have, and so far I'm struggling for this exact reason. I'm sure it can be done, but it's definitely going to take more brain energy required than turning bard (more songs) or warlock (more invocations/pact boon features) into a half-caster.

Right. The only class features wizards have in the core class is "I know more spells" and "I cast more spells". And even many of the subclass features (especially in the PHB) are "When I cast my spells, I can get extra effect/ignore some requirement". All they have are their spells. And they have the most spells. And all the broken ones. Including spells that no one else gets. That's not an identity, that's a nerd's power fantasy. "I've been bullied so long for being smart, so now I'll show all those muscle-bound cretins!" Not a good look.

HPisBS

2022-02-21, 11:37 AM

Exactly. The solution is to stop people from being Dr Strange at all. The game would be much better by capping things at more sane levels for everyone and breaking the quadratic nature entirely.

.... you could have both (at different points in the game).

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F45ljpl.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Level 0-10 is the "sane" levels where everything and everyone is more-or-less grounded.

Tier 3 is where the Barbarian gets his hands on the Gem of Cyttorak (Juggernaut).

Tier 4 is where the Barbarian ODs on gamma radiation while the Rogue gets bit by a magical radioactive Spider, and they start hanging out with a fully trained Dr. Strange.

Those who are only interested in "sane" gameplay can drag out those first 10 levels all the way to the end of the campaign. (Supposedly, most games end around that point as it is.)

Those who want to feel like it's at least possible to handle whatever the multiverse throws at them can continue on to the higher tiers. (Preferably with a couple of martials who also feel like they're more-or-less up to those challenges.)

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 11:40 AM

.... you could have both (at different points in the game).

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F45ljpl.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Level 0-10 is the "sane" levels where everything and everyone is more-or-less grounded.

Tier 3 is where the Barbarian gets his hands on the Gem of Cyttorak (Juggernaut).

Tier 4 is where the Barbarian ODs on gamma radiation while the Rogue gets bit by a magical radioactive Spider, and they start hanging out with a fully trained Dr. Strange.

Those who are only interested in "sane" gameplay can drag out those first 10 levels all the way to the end of the campaign. (Supposedly, most games end around that point as it is.)

Those who want to feel like it's at least possible to handle whatever the multiverse throws at them can continue on to the higher tiers. (Preferably with a couple of martials who also feel like they're more-or-less up to those challenges.)

So you're saying that if you don't want to play spell casters, you only get to play half the game. Because the hulk and spiderman can't hang with Dr Strange. That's been established very strongly--the only times that those characters can do that is when the writers let them win.

Not only that, but the people who want to play Dr Strange-level have to wait through half the game that doesn't fit them at all.

Oh, and you have to warn people that their class choice is irrelevant past level 10, because they need to completely change to something gonzo that casts spells or it's useless.

No, that's the same mistake as OD&D with the Name Level. Splitting your game into two radically different chunks with different expectations and gameplay just annoys everyone and pleases no one. Choose one and do it well. D&D does a lot better at the lower power scale. All the monsters, quests, and structures are built around it. None of them are designed for that higher-power play. So it's logical to cut out the (unintended, as far as I can tell) cancer at the top end. And it's pretty simple, just take an axe to those too-strong spells. Bring them back down into sanity and then everyone can be powerful and still play together.

HPisBS

2022-02-21, 12:14 PM

So you're saying that if you don't want to play spell casters, you only get to play half the game. Because the hulk and spiderman can't hang with Dr Strange. That's been established very strongly--the only times that those characters can do that is when the writers let them win.

Debatable, but even granting you that, they don't necessarily need to be able to 1v1 him and win; they just need to be able to hang. And those characters very clearly can - at the very least - hang.

Not only that, but the people who want to play Dr Strange-level have to wait through half the game that doesn't fit them at all.

That's kinda how things go. You're not gonna feel like Bruce Lee after your third Jeet Kune Do lesson. Gotta work your way up, no matter what it is.

... Or, your group could just skip right past all of that and start at lvl 11. Not all games start at lvl 1.

Oh, and you have to warn people that their class choice is irrelevant past level 10, because they need to completely change to something gonzo that casts spells or it's useless.

Those who want to feel like it's at least possible to handle whatever the multiverse throws at them can continue on to the higher tiers. (Preferably with a couple of martials who also feel like they're more-or-less up to those challenges.)

Part and parcel is raising martials up into the realm of mythical heroes alongside the magical classes. As I always say, buff, don't nerf. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsC8io4w1sY&t=142s)

No, that's the same mistake as OD&D with the Name Level. Splitting your game into two radically different chunks with different expectations and gameplay just annoys everyone and pleases no one. Choose one and do it well. D&D does a lot better at the lower power scale. All the monsters, quests, and structures are built around it. None of them are designed for that higher-power play. So it's logical to cut out the (unintended, as far as I can tell) cancer at the top end. And it's pretty simple, just take an axe to those too-strong spells. Bring them back down into sanity and then everyone can be powerful and still play together.

If Marvel writers can think up ways to challenge Dr. Strange, then WotC should be able to, too. Some spells may need to be tweaked, or perhaps even banned from free level-up acquisition and explicitly made into the targets of quests to find them out in the game world. But combined with the kinds of suggestions that've been posted in this thread (and others) for buffing late-game martials (Eagle Eyes, class-based Powerful Build that stacks with the racial version, etc) multiple times already, a relatively smooth power curve should be achievable.

Earlier today I was thinking of how to turn Wizards into a half caster class, what sorts of features they might have, and so far I'm struggling for this exact reason. I'm sure it can be done, but it's definitely going to take more brain energy required than turning bard (more songs) or warlock (more invocations/pact boon features) into a half-caster.

I was being facetious when I said this

Muggle D&D turns full casters into half-casters, half-casters into one-third-casters, and martials with magical subclasses are Magic Initiates who maybe dabble in alchemy.

- but if you actually wanted to turn Wizards into half-casters, you'd probably want to do it by leaning way harder on the subclasses. Let each school get more at-will magical stuff to do. More / better / faster Minor Alchemy, a 2nd Transmuter's Stone with greater effects, infinite castings of Alter Self.

-- Actually, yeah, I kinda like that. Turn Signature Spells and Spell Mastery into subclass-specific features, and let the main class's capstone be something like faster rituals, or even a 2nd concentration slot (perhaps at the cost of a [cheap] consumed material focus or something).

--- Or combine the new with the old to make a "Habitual Spell Mastery" : Choose one 1st or 2nd level spell from the school of your Arcane Tradition. That spell no longer requires your concentration when you cast it as a 1st or 2nd level spell."

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 12:32 PM

Marvel can challenge Dr Strange because they control all the sides and it's all fiat. Doesn't work that way when Dr Strange is being played by someone else and they can't just hand him the idiot ball or come up with new things.

Oh, and those challenges for Dr Strange also end up shattering anything like a coherent world. Functionally, that power level is impossible to sustain in coherent worldbuilding. No, none of the marvel stories actually have any real worldbuilding--it's all molded to fit the current thing and then abandoned/retconned for the next thing. Powers change between episodes, continuity only exists in the gaps.

And buffing without nerfing inevitably creates power spirals and focuses more effort on optimization. Which turns off a lot of people. Not everyone wants to play gonzo all the time. And that's where it ends up. With bloat and gonzo.

Edit: I'm going to lay down a marker here. I strongly believe that having a system that handles both super-high-power characters and action-hero level characters with the same basic mechanics and content will inevitably do both badly. Or will only work if it's strongly-curated point-buy with very little progression.

You can do a game where everyone starts out as demigod-class characters. Eg Exalted. You can do a game where everyone starts out weak and grows to be competent action heroes. EG...well...lots of games. You can do games where you EITHER play high-end supers OR low-end supers, but you don't really progress much vertically. You can't have a game where the same mechanics handle growing from action heroes to demigods. The gameplay structures and mechanics required are just too different, and any slight difference in power curves[1] causes the system to fall apart and produce absurdity. See 3e D&D, for which most of the existing content is absolutely broken and has to be rebuilt from scratch for each table.

Choose one and do it well. Don't try to have your cake and eat it too with a system that tries to do both. It will inevitably create a mess.

That's a mathematical identity--slight differences in exponent cause HUGE differences in outcomes as scale continues. And those can be entirely unintended differences.

[1] even between the developer's intent and the as-played.

HPisBS

2022-02-21, 12:55 PM

Marvel can challenge Dr Strange because they control all the sides and it's all fiat. Doesn't work that way when Dr Strange is being played by someone else and they can't just hand him the idiot ball or come up with new things.

Oh, and those challenges for Dr Strange also end up shattering anything like a coherent world. Functionally, that power level is impossible to sustain in coherent worldbuilding. No, none of the marvel stories actually have any real worldbuilding--it's all molded to fit the current thing and then abandoned/retconned for the next thing. Powers change between episodes, continuity only exists in the gaps.

All of which is irrelevant to D&D because, no matter how OP a lvl 20 Wizard may be compared to a lvl 20 Barbarian, or compared to the kinds of things normal people would be troubled by, he is not actually Dr. Strange. Unlike Strange, he can only do some similar things a couple times a day.

And unless you've got some major True Polymorph abuse or something, the Wizard isn't actually upsetting the balance of the world that much.

And buffing without nerfing inevitably creates power spirals and focuses more effort on optimization. Which turns off a lot of people. Not everyone wants to play gonzo all the time. And that's where it ends up. With bloat and gonzo.

How many times have I (and others who take my kind of position?) said the OP spells could stand to be tweaked now? I'm pretty sure I just said it in my last comment lol. I even proposed a change that I've rarely - if ever - seen before, of requiring those particular spells to be found in the game-world before the PCs can learn them.

Those who "don't want to play gonzo all the time" can stop at or around lvl 10 like most campaigns already do.

If they want to progress at a normal rate, rather than dragging it out over the whole course of a long campaign, then I suppose they can just treat lvl 10 (or whatever number) as though it were lvl 20 and provide other rewards like feats for subsequent level ups.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 01:25 PM

HPisBS

2022-02-21, 01:54 PM

Basically you'd need two completely different games.

Apparently, D&D needs to split into "Super D&D" and "Muggle D&D."
Edit:

Super D&D maybe tweaks some OP spells like Simulacrum, and gives high-level martials Heroic Feats like eagle vision, super jumps, and after-images.
Muggle D&D turns full casters into half-casters, half-casters into one-third-casters, and martials with magical subclasses are Magic Initiates who maybe dabble in alchemy.

Are we just going in circles now? lol

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 02:11 PM

Are we just going in circles now? lol

You don't even need to go that far in toning it down.

Turn off multiclassing (or drastically increase the consequences for a full-caster to multiclass for armor), kill off a small handful of pesky spells and break out a chunk of effects out of the spell-caster jail and you're good. Or at least acceptable.

And gonzo D&D already exists. It's called 3e.

Really, most of the super-high-power stuff comes from
* ignoring the limits built into spells and spell-casting, usually out of "quality of life"
* writing bunches of extra spells, mostly for wizards
* not having a coherent setting in the first place so everyone cherry-picks all the good stuff, especially where magic items are concerned.

Sure, there are structural improvements that would help keep things in check. Breaking the "each spell is an atomic unit without prerequisites" idea would help.

As would rewriting wizards (specifically) to actually have class features instead of their entire class budget being used up by their (broken) spell list. And really it is just a wizard problem. Clerics and druids rarely break things. Sorcerers don't even try, unless multiclassed and basically acting as a paladin+. Bards can do anything...in principle. But once actually built they're fairly limited. It's basically just wizards who are the problem. And always have been. Because they have no class fantasy other than ALL THE POWER. Class fantasies, by providing channels for expression, also provide inherent limits. And when your fantasy is that you're all powerful...yeah. Not many limits there.

Psyren

2022-02-21, 02:17 PM

sithlordnergal

2022-02-21, 02:20 PM

Counter-proposal. There's a system that went all-in on caster supremacy. 3e. Go play it.

5e doesn't handle the high power range at all. It exists, but its existence breaks everything. However, if you tone that down to something more sane (where martials can keep up without silly gonzo), it handles it just fine. So toning it down is the smallest change. Properly supporting the gonzo would require an entirely different mechanical structure past level 10, with entirely different enemies, guidelines, etc. Basically you'd need two completely different games.

5e handles high power ranges perfectly fine, far better than 3e ever did. Martials can actually keep up pretty well with casters in 5e, for the most part. ITs not like 3.5 where Wizards are effectively gods that can do literally everything once they reach high levels. So there's no real need to tone anything down at all. Now, are there spells that a pure martial just can't get past? Yeah, there are. Its an intrinsic part of the magic system. At a certain point only magic can beat magic, its literally baked into the design of the game.

As for the "different mechanical structure", again this is false. The actual mechanical structure doesn't need to change at all once you reach higher tiers. The only change is in what you face. Instead of a tribe of goblins, now you face an Aboleth working with an Elder Oblex, with maybe a Horned Devil or two as back up. They're not the bosses of anything, they're taking the exact same role of the goblin tribe. An issue that needs to be solved, but by no means are they the mastermind behind everything.

Amnestic

2022-02-21, 02:26 PM

A
Monks are inherently magical though, both in PF and 5e. So it's not like pushups alone get you there without a mystic component.

I dunno, when you can write a book so profound that merging with it also gives you divinity (Gruhastha, Irori's nephew) in Golarion, I can absolutely believe that doing enough pushups would get you godhood without a mystic component.

Florian

2022-02-21, 03:00 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 03:11 PM

@PhoenixPhyre:

Did you ever consider that "solving the problem" is an absoliute dealbreaker for a lot of people, not because it kills "caster supremancy" but rather "versimilitude"?

Consider this:

A lot of people think in terms of modelling "natural" reality based on our physical world and then add the layer of "supernatural" reality that consists of monsters, gods, magic on top of that (or metahuman abilities, mad science....)

Let's say technically advanced aliens, come to present-day eartch with FTL ships, micro-fusion powered battle armour and plasma rifles, we expect these things to be part of the "natural" world, things about physics and such we just don´t know yet, so we are able to pick that equipment up and use it, to study and reverse-engineer it, to get to the point of understanding when we can also build such things.

Not so when it comes to the "supernatural" part of fantasy. There is a certain thresshold there and to cross it, you must also become supernatural.

You can either accept that peak human strength is exactly that and doesn´t have to mean much when compared to, say, peak frost giant strength, or you have to rework the whole initial premisse of the supernatural world being atop and beyond the natural world and not everyone wants to go there.

I don't have problems with D&D characters being supernatural. They already are, for the most part. Yes, even the Champion Fighters and Thief Rogues.

I do have a problem with the idea that once you're supernatural, the only valid end point is throwing down with demigods on the regular. That's the thing that breaks stuff. I fully and totally don't believe that D&D supports being a regular joe. It's a fantasy world with magic embedded in and through everything. So everybody's going to have passed that threshold. Just by being anyone worth talking about.

There's a false dichotomy that either you're Dr Strange-level wizard/Cosmic Hulk-level demigod or you're a regular chump without any power at all. Huge excluded middle there. And that's the middle where D&D actually works. Where the characters range from (at low levels) action heroes[1] to (at high levels) larger-than-life but not gonzo people. People who still live in the world and can interact with normal affairs. People who don't have to munch on a half-dozen Archdukes of Hell per day to feel challenged. People for whom a single archduke is a challenge that requires preparation, tactics, and yes, luck.

[1] by any sane standard, action heroes are supernatural. In durability and recovery time if nothing else.

clash

2022-02-21, 03:45 PM

I don't have problems with D&D characters being supernatural. They already are, for the most part. Yes, even the Champion Fighters and Thief Rogues.

I do have a problem with the idea that once you're supernatural, the only valid end point is throwing down with demigods on the regular. That's the thing that breaks stuff. I fully and totally don't believe that D&D supports being a regular joe. It's a fantasy world with magic embedded in and through everything. So everybody's going to have passed that threshold. Just by being anyone worth talking about.

There's a false dichotomy that either you're Dr Strange-level wizard/Cosmic Hulk-level demigod or you're a regular chump without any power at all. Huge excluded middle there. And that's the middle where D&D actually works. Where the characters range from (at low levels) action heroes[1] to (at high levels) larger-than-life but not gonzo people. People who still live in the world and can interact with normal affairs. People who don't have to munch on a half-dozen Archdukes of Hell per day to feel challenged. People for whom a single archduke is a challenge that requires preparation, tactics, and yes, luck.

[1] by any sane standard, action heroes are supernatural. In durability and recovery time if nothing else.

I think part of the struggle is that as evidenced in this thread people can't really agree on what power level they want d&d characters to have. Honestly I don't care where the power level sits but I want it to be the same power level for casters and non casters and to bring it back to the thread topic I think it needs to be fixed via class features not magical items.

I'm of the further opinion to give everyone cool stuff as they level, but if other people prefer the martial model of "I hit stuff with my sword and now I hit things twice as much" then all the power to them so long as that model can be balanced against actually getting cool stuff. D&d tried to both have scaling power represented by the different tiers of play and keeping maritals as glorified action heros and I don't think it entirely worked.

Once you get into what was designed as high tier the problems out pace a hit point damage solution. Casters have ways of contributing to these issues. Rather than removing this tier of play and these interesting types of challenges, I would much rather see fighters and barbarians that can continue to contribute in interesting ways.

That isn't too say the spell list should be trimmed down, simply that I don't want a d&d with no high level magic at all.

Florian

2022-02-21, 03:53 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 04:00 PM

I think part of the struggle is that as evidenced in this thread people can't really agree on what power level they want d&d characters to have. Honestly I don't care where the power level sits but I want it to be the same power level for casters and non casters and to bring it back to the thread topic I think it needs to be fixed via class features not magical items.

I'm of the further opinion to give everyone cool stuff as they level, but if other people prefer the martial model of "I hit stuff with my sword and now I hit things twice as much" then all the power to them so long as that model can be balanced against actually getting cool stuff. D&d tried to both have scaling power represented by the different tiers of play and keeping maritals as glorified action heros and I don't think it entirely worked.

Once you get into what was designed as high tier the problems out pace a hit point damage solution. Casters have ways of contributing to these issues. Rather than removing this tier of play and these interesting types of challenges, I would much rather see fighters and barbarians that can continue to contribute in interesting ways.

That isn't too say the spell list should be trimmed down, simply that I don't want a d&d with no high level magic at all.

That's why I'm coming more and more around to the idea of democratizing the "solutions to non-combat problems" abilities. Make them not spells, but things anyone can access if they choose. Outside of the class paradigm entirely, more like "things anyone can learn if they want".

And you can have high level magic without having gonzo. Really, if you drop a few of the broken spells off a cliff, the rest is fairly sane. Because mostly it's about applying personal power to problems. Which martials can do just as well at most scales.

High level problems should be more about the things you can't solve by yourself. The fundamental limitation is being in one place at a time, limited to doing one thing at a time. Force multipliers that move settings should, IMO, come from making alliances, making friends, and letting them pick up some of the load. No individual character should be wiping out armies or reshaping reality. The party might be the tip of the spearhead in assaulting Orcus's fortress, but without the rest of it, they should absolutely fail. It should require getting a host of allies of some type together to give you a chance. Not one group with their dozens of simulacra or whatever other stuff they've got just waltzing in and chewing through the abyssal host themselves.

A high level character or even party shouldn't be able to dominate a nation by themselves--they can put the hurt down wherever they are, but can't be everywhere. They need to build alliances, deal with things they can't just force their way through, etc.

Angelalex242

2022-02-21, 04:06 PM

Well, Dr. Strange and Scarlet Witch exist in an odd world...particularly when Thor, who should be built as a straight up deity (see Tiamat in Rise of Tiamat). I mean, we're talking about a guy with 5 legendary saves, 5 legendary actions, and a ton of other shenanigans on account of being a straight up deity...is in their universe. Ditto Loki, who also needs to be built as a straight up deity.

Yet...Loki is a puny god, isn't he? The same being that made Loki a puny god is called a friend from work by Thor.

clash

2022-02-21, 04:06 PM

And I'm quite the opposite.

When things are modelled after something that reflects the in-game reality and said in-game reality has lop-sided power levels, so be it.

When three players in a group want to play something Conan-style and the forth wants to play four-dimensional-chess, as DM, I will go with the three guys and support their style at my table. Same when the three folks want to play four-dimensional-chess and the forth wants to be a muggle.

Not every combination has to work and there is no gzuarantee that what you want to play fits in with the rest of the folks, either adapt or leave, that's also what session zeros are for.

I agree we're on completely different ends of this.

For me there is an implied assumption with classes that if two PCs are the same level they should be able to coexist. Saying let's keep the imbalance just never play a fighter if there's 3 casters on the team is a very unsatisfying answer. At that point I don't know what game you're looking to play but the idea behind the swords and sorcery genre is that both styles can exist and contribute in the same game. If the problem for reconciling the two is the in game reality then change that. The reality is only limited by the whims of the dm.

But agree to disagree is I think the logical conclusion here.

sithlordnergal

2022-02-21, 04:11 PM

High level problems should be more about the things you can't solve by yourself. The fundamental limitation is being in one place at a time, limited to doing one thing at a time. Force multipliers that move settings should, IMO, come from making alliances, making friends, and letting them pick up some of the load. No individual character should be wiping out armies or reshaping reality. The party might be the tip of the spearhead in assaulting Orcus's fortress, but without the rest of it, they should absolutely fail. It should require getting a host of allies of some type together to give you a chance. Not one group with their dozens of simulacra or whatever other stuff they've got just waltzing in and chewing through the abyssal host themselves.

A high level character or even party shouldn't be able to dominate a nation by themselves--they can put the hurt down wherever they are, but can't be everywhere. They need to build alliances, deal with things they can't just force their way through, etc.

I disagree with you. A party of high level characters should be able to deal with pretty much all of those forces in that fortress without worrying about having a literal army behind them to support them. A few well placed Earthquake spells from a Wizard and Cleric should be able to bring down most of the defenses, while some AoE spells or summons deal with the majority of the enemies. The full casters should be able to wipe out armies and reshape reality, because that's their whole schtick in DnD. Heck by level 20 a Cleric can literally call up their Deity and say "Hey, can you do X for me", thus reshaping all of reality with a class ability alone. The only ones the party should be worried about are Orcus himself, and his direct underlings, like Pit Fiends or Balors.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 04:16 PM

I disagree with you. A party of high level characters should be able to deal with pretty much all of those forces in that fortress without worrying about having a literal army behind them to support them. A few well placed Earthquake spells from a Wizard and Cleric should be able to bring down most of the defenses, while some AoE spells or summons deal with the majority of the enemies. The full casters should be able to wipe out armies and reshape reality, because that's their whole schtick in DnD. Heck by level 20 a Cleric can literally call up their Deity and say "Hey, can you do X for me", thus reshaping all of reality with a class ability alone. The only ones the party should be worried about are Orcus himself, and his direct underlings, like Pit Fiends or Balors.

If that's the case, why hasn't Orcus fallen already? There are an infinite number of beings as powerful as a level 20 party out there. Why haven't they already popped off and handle it over a lunch period? And if the fortress of the Demon Prince of Undeath can fall to a couple earthquake spells from mortals, he's not really a threat.

That's what I mean that the gonzo level is incompatible with anything like a coherent setting.

And no, "I'm a full caster so I can wipe out armies" isn't their whole schtck in 5e D&D. Point out where that's stated. And casually reshaping reality as a class feature (an unwritten one at that!) doesn't leave much room for team play, and that's directly stated as a core feature of D&D--that the team, working together, can tackle things none of the individuals can. D&D is not about individuals or protagonists with underlings at all. By direct developer statement. So "I can reshape reality, you can hold my cloak" isn't actually an intended thing. At all.

Note:

A solar is godlike in its glory and power. On the battlefield, the solar’s sword flies into the fray on its own, and a single arrow from a solar’s bow can strike a target dead on contact. So great is a solar’s celestial might that even demon princes shrink at its resonant commands.

It is said that only twenty-four solars exist. The few solars that are known are stewards of specific deities. The others rest in a state of contemplation, waiting for the time when their services are needed to stave off some cosmic threat to the cause of good.

Yet a single gonzo-scale party can take on all 24 solars in a single day without breaking a sweat, two or three at a time. Which says that no, gonzo-level is not an intended power level.

Florian

2022-02-21, 04:28 PM

sithlordnergal

2022-02-21, 04:30 PM

If that's the case, why hasn't Orcus fallen already? There are an infinite number of beings as powerful as a level 20 party out there. Why haven't they already popped off and handle it over a lunch period? And if the fortress of the Demon Prince of Undeath can fall to a couple earthquake spells from mortals, he's not really a threat.

That's what I mean that the gonzo level is incompatible with anything like a coherent setting.

And no, "I'm a full caster so I can wipe out armies" isn't their whole schtck in 5e D&D. Point out where that's stated.

Mostly because those level 20 parties tend to be exceptionally rare. I mean, super rare. Its why you still have castles being made. A few well placed Earthquakes can knock it down, but there are so few casters that can cast Earthquake that it doesn't actually matter. If there were a lot more spell casters that could use Earthquake, then you wouldn't see castles. Also, it may be better to have Orcus in charge, because the guy who takes over could be infinitely worse than Orcus.

They are compatible with a coherent setting, you just need to realize that the scope of your setting has to change. By level 20, you're not dealing with small problems like "A goblin tribe is raiding a village". You're dealing with "Orcus is about to invade the entire world, we need to stop him while keeping the status quo of the Lower Planes". You're dealing with politics of the outer planes at that level.

Its an implication via available spells. A single Druid can decimate an entire army with a single 9th level spell, and they can decimate that army from 2 miles away. All it takes is a single Storm of Vengeance, and most common soldiers will be dead while the tougher/experienced troops will be close to death. Can't counterspell it, can't dispell it, because it has a range of 2 miles and is a 5000 ft. cone with a 360ft area. Meanwhile Wizards get Meteor Swarm, only a 1 mile range, and sends down three different 40ft radius AoEs that deal 40d6 each.

Those are spells specifically designed to wipe out massive amounts of NPCs with a single spell.

EDIT: Also, the class ability isn't unwritten. Divine Intervention: You implore your deity for their aid. At level 20 it is an automatic success. The divine intervention can come in any form, its up to the DM. It could be a single spell, it could be something else, whatever the DM wants really. But it still is you effectively reshaping reality via calling on your God to do so for you.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 04:37 PM

Mostly because those level 20 parties tend to be exceptionally rare. I mean, super rare. Its why you still have castles being made. A few well placed Earthquakes can knock it down, but there are so few casters that can cast Earthquake that it doesn't actually matter. If there were a lot more spell casters that could use Earthquake, then you wouldn't see castles. Also, it may be better to have Orcus in charge, because the guy who takes over could be infinitely worse than Orcus.

They are compatible with a coherent setting, you just need to realize that the scope of your setting has to change. By level 20, you're not dealing with small problems like "A goblin tribe is raiding a village". You're dealing with "Orcus is about to invade the entire world, we need to stop him while keeping the status quo of the Lower Planes". You're dealing with politics of the outer planes at that level.

Its an implication via available spells. A single Druid can decimate an entire army with a single 9th level spell, and they can decimate that army from 2 miles away. All it takes is a single Storm of Vengeance, and most common soldiers will be dead while the tougher/experienced troops will be close to death. Can't counterspell it, can't dispell it, because it has a range of 2 miles and is a 5000 ft. cone with a 360ft area. Meanwhile Wizards get Meteor Swarm, only a 1 mile range, and sends down three different 40ft radius AoEs that deal 40d6 each.

Those are spells specifically designed to wipe out massive amounts of NPCs with a single spell.

360' area is...trivial. Especially in a world where such things are known.

40' radius x3 is...trivial. Especially in a world where such things are known.

Neither of those are army killers, unless the party is the first people to have ever gotten there. In which case you've already given up on a coherent world.

And no, the abyssal demon prince of the undead, lord of black magic, knows all about level 20 people. He's existed for longer than whole worlds have, he's eaten whole worlds. Making him fall over when poked by the first party to spend a few months power leveling turns him into a chump. And all the gods and devils into chumps, because they've been fighting the blood war since the planes formed and haven't made any progress.

Mortals are rather low on the cosmic power scale. A level 20 party should treat a CR 20+ foe as a serious threat, not something you kill 12-15 of in a meaningful day. The idea that some random people with mortal-scale spells are knocking down demigods and actual gods is, frankly, offensive to anything like serious worldbuilding.

subtledoctor

2022-02-21, 04:49 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 04:53 PM

Stepping back a bit: there’s a bigger issue here. If you are in ‘tier 4’ play and you are dungeoneering and having battles where the wizard is outshining the warrior, then something has already gone wrong. (Or you veered into a game of Baldur’s Gate 2.) “Roll initiative, get ready to use your abilities to win a fight” is not what high-level play should be about.

The old BECMI sets actually did a really good job of getting this across: the red box was all dungeon-delving and saving the town (levels 1-5); the blue box was about exploring more far-flung regions (levels 6-12); the green box was about establishing your place and managing a piece (a barony or so) of that wider world (levels 13-24); and the black box was about influencing the course of major nations and putting down world-shattering threats (levels 25-36).

If a campaign is running epic-level encounters as just mid-level encounters on steroids, then the problem is with the DMing, not the RAW power of wizards.

(As for how to handle powerful PC wizards, you don’t have to look far for tips.) https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html

That's the "well, it's high level so we're now playing a different game entirely" model. And it sucks. For everyone. Because the people who wanted to play at one scale generally weren't interested in playing at a different one. So you spent most of the game with someone not having as much fun as possible.

It's also very different from the core assumptions of 5e. Which very much do keep a consistent play style, even if scope of threat changes. The stakes change, but the day-to-day doesn't. Because actually, there's nothing about a D&D character that makes them any good at that larger scale. You're still one person, doing things at the personal level. And that doesn't scale.

Psyren

2022-02-21, 04:53 PM

I dunno, when you can write a book so profound that merging with it also gives you divinity (Gruhastha, Irori's nephew) in Golarion, I can absolutely believe that doing enough pushups would get you godhood without a mystic component.

That seems pretty mystic to me. Was he an Expert?

Saying let's keep the imbalance just never play a fighter if there's 3 casters on the team is a very unsatisfying answer.

I don't see anyone saying "never play a Fighter." A degree of imbalance does not make Fighters unplayable, especially the relatively mild degree of it present in 5e.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 04:54 PM

I don't see anyone saying "never play a Fighter." A degree of imbalance does not make Fighters unplayable, especially the relatively mild degree of it present in 5e.

I do. There are explicit statements up thread that if you don't want to play a full caster, you should stop playing by level 10. And that the only non-full caster that could even possibly hang with a full caster is the paladin.

And that that's not only ok, but that's intended and the only good option that preserves class fantasies. That casters are supposed to utterly dominate everything and anyone playing anything else should know that they're utterly outclassed by design.

sithlordnergal

2022-02-21, 04:57 PM

360' area is...trivial. Especially in a world where such things are known.

40' radius x3 is...trivial. Especially in a world where such things are known.

Neither of those are army killers, unless the party is the first people to have ever gotten there. In which case you've already given up on a coherent world.

And no, the abyssal demon prince of the undead, lord of black magic, knows all about level 20 people. He's existed for longer than whole worlds have, he's eaten whole worlds. Making him fall over when poked by the first party to spend a few months power leveling turns him into a chump. And all the gods and devils into chumps, because they've been fighting the blood war since the planes formed and haven't made any progress.

Mortals are rather low on the cosmic power scale. A level 20 party should treat a CR 20+ foe as a serious threat, not something you kill 12-15 of in a meaningful day. The idea that some random people with mortal-scale spells are knocking down demigods and actual gods is, frankly, offensive to anything like serious worldbuilding.

360' area is trivial in the real world, not so trivial in DnD terms. Same is true with a trio of 40ft radius spheres. Consider Waterdeep, it is one of the biggest cities in Forgotten Realms, a common DnD setting. It also is considered to have a huge army, including griffon riders, wizards, clerics, guards, ect. That huge army...has about 5,000 people strong. That is one of the largest standing armies in the setting, and its only 5k people total. Meanwhile even the smallest armies in the real world typically have 1000 people. The exception to that is Vatican City, which only has a population of about 1,000 and a military force of 135, but its forces are supplemented by italy's army.

He can know all about level 20 mortals, hell he likely aided some of them in reaching level 20. It doesn't make him a chump if he is beaten by the first level 20 party that runs into him. It means that those level 20 parties that aren't allied with him are exceptionally rare, and just don't normally happen. If your world has a ton of level 20 adventurers running around, then yeah I can see why it wouldn't make sense. But if it doesn't, then it makes perfect sense why Orcus is there.

And it still doesn't change the fact that Orcus is likely still around because its advantageous for everyone involved for him to stay around. Yeah, Orcus is the abyssal prince of the undead, but it'd be bad if Orcus were replaced with, say, Delran, the up and coming Devil that's just waiting for Orcus to die so he can take over, break treaties, and plunge the world into a never ending undead horror show.

Mortals have never actually been that low on the power scale. Its why mortals could, quite literally, kill and replace Gods back in older versions of DnD and older DnD stories. Hell, Mystra the literal Goddess of Magic has technically been murdered what? Two or three times now? Usually by Mortals that got even stronger than she did? And what happened? you ended up with magic going on the fritz and the world nearly ending. By level 20 your mortal characters could probably do the same as the other mortals, but realized messing with the literal cosmic balance of everything results in the end of the world.

Kane0

2022-02-21, 05:26 PM

- Character levels go from 1 to 12 instead of 1 to 20
- Return to Fort/Ref/Will saves
- Spell levels go from 1 to 5 (plus cantrips) instead of 1 to 9 (plus cantrips)
- All classes are casters to some degree. Instead of full, half, one-third and none there is full, 3/4, 2/3, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4
- General rule of thumb any spell should use an attack roll, ability check, saving throw and/or require concentration so there is always some chance of failure and counterplay beyond other magic (counter, dispel, antimagic, etc)
- Rituals and crafting magic items are disconnected from spellcasting and available to everyone. Most higher power and 'plot' spells are redistributed to rituals and magic items
- Spell lists based on source (Eg Arcane, Divine, Natural) rather than class and are generally smaller. Subclasses instead carry more spell selection to hammer in a niche and combat cherrypicking
- Following subclasses, alternative ways to obtain additional spells (race, feat, magic items, etc) follow tight thematic connection
- 'Innate' casters use spell points, 'Granted' casters use pact magic, 'Learned' casters use vancian slots
- ASIs and feats are separated with a new Talents category added as well. Feats are strictly for combat, Talents are strictly NOT for combat and help martials avoid everything-looks-like-a-nail syndrome

Would this still be D&D? Lots of sacred cattle being disposed of.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 05:41 PM

360' area is trivial in the real world, not so trivial in DnD terms. Same is true with a trio of 40ft radius spheres. Consider Waterdeep, it is one of the biggest cities in Forgotten Realms, a common DnD setting. It also is considered to have a huge army, including griffon riders, wizards, clerics, guards, ect. That huge army...has about 5,000 people strong. That is one of the largest standing armies in the setting, and its only 5k people total. Meanwhile even the smallest armies in the real world typically have 1000 people. The exception to that is Vatican City, which only has a population of about 1,000 and a military force of 135, but its forces are supplemented by italy's army.

He can know all about level 20 mortals, hell he likely aided some of them in reaching level 20. It doesn't make him a chump if he is beaten by the first level 20 party that runs into him. It means that those level 20 parties that aren't allied with him are exceptionally rare, and just don't normally happen. If your world has a ton of level 20 adventurers running around, then yeah I can see why it wouldn't make sense. But if it doesn't, then it makes perfect sense why Orcus is there.

And it still doesn't change the fact that Orcus is likely still around because its advantageous for everyone involved for him to stay around. Yeah, Orcus is the abyssal prince of the undead, but it'd be bad if Orcus were replaced with, say, Delran, the up and coming Devil that's just waiting for Orcus to die so he can take over, break treaties, and plunge the world into a never ending undead horror show.

Mortals have never actually been that low on the power scale. Its why mortals could, quite literally, kill and replace Gods back in older versions of DnD and older DnD stories. Hell, Mystra the literal Goddess of Magic has technically been murdered what? Two or three times now? Usually by Mortals that got even stronger than she did? And what happened? you ended up with magic going on the fritz and the world nearly ending. By level 20 your mortal characters could probably do the same as the other mortals, but realized messing with the literal cosmic balance of everything results in the end of the world.

Infinite worlds === infinite level 20 parties not allied to him.

And FR isn't exactly known for good, coherent worldbuilding already. Plus has decades of legacy cruft from writers across tons of editions. And in a world where fireballs (not all that much lower radius than meteor swarm) exist, those soldiers aren't going to be clumped up in fireball formation.

And Mystra? Wasn't killed by mortals. First incarnation sacrificed herself to keep the weave intact. Mortal involved died, horribly. Random mortal promoted. Second incarnation? Killed by Helm while depowered by Ao. Midnight was placed in that seat, despite not really being involved. Third incarnation? Murdered by Cyric at the behest of Shar, but not really. Still alive.

So no, mortals aren't routinely murdering gods. Even in FR. In fact, the default for this edition is that gods are literally unkillable by anyone. You can kill an avatar, but that mostly just irritates the god. Only lesser gods can be killed (the word demigod isn't really a thing in this edition, not directly anyway), and even then usually only in avatar form. And not at the "3-5 per day" rate that a level 20 gonzo-power party can chew through CR 20+ creatures (which is where those avatars fit).

HPisBS

2022-02-21, 05:43 PM

Schwann145

2022-02-21, 05:44 PM

And this is why solving the caster/martial problem is impossible--there is a solid contingent of people for whom wizard[1] supremacy is not only acceptable, but natural and necessary. Who believe that wizards should be the most powerful as a matter of right logic, because they were smart enough to pick the right class at level 1 it makes complete sense that the class that is the absolute best at fighting and swinging a weapon is not in the same league, in terms of overall power, as the class that has the cheat codes to reality.
Made a few edits there to address the point.

A game where everyone else is relegated to spear-carriers and applause-bringers because they had the stupid idea that the other classes in the game were expected to be equals, because that's how it's presented.[/COLOR]
This sounds like your personal opinion/bias showing through.
The classes are presented together, but nowhere in the RAW are they presented as equal. If there's something specific in print that you're thinking of here, I'd love to get a reference?

Honestly I don't care where the power level sits but I want it to be the same power level for casters and non casters...
The issue I (and others like me) have with this idea is that it just doesn't track with common sense, even when applied to a fantasy setting. You're essentially suggesting: There's gonna be a fight. Some people show up unarmed. Some people show up with knives. Some people show up with assault rifles. All of these people should be equal combatants in the fight.
That... totally, utterly, completely shatters my suspension of disbelief so much that I can't play in that world. The exception is if the game sells itself, on it's face, with that sort of power balance, and I step into said game willingly: "Fists are as powerful as Guns - The Game." If I sign up for that game, I expect it. D&D is not presented as such a game.

And, in a sense, that game exists. It's called D&D 4e, and it caused 80% of the player base to take their ball and go home, with the biggest disagreement being (in my recollection) the homogeneity of the classes; ie, "everything feels identical so what's the point?"

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 05:52 PM

Made a few edits there to address the point.

Where is magic stated to be the cheat codes to reality? That's your bias.

This sounds like your personal opinion/bias showing through.
The classes are presented together, but nowhere in the RAW are they presented as equal. If there's something specific in print that you're thinking of here, I'd love to get a reference?

A level 19 fighter levels up at the same rate as a level 19 wizard. The CR/adventuring day guidelines don't differentiate. Nothing in the text says to treat them differently. That there is enough to consider them equal. Because that's the default.

The issue I (and others like me) have with this idea is that it just doesn't track with common sense, even when applied to a fantasy setting. You're essentially suggesting: There's gonna be a fight. Some people show up unarmed. Some people show up with knives. Some people show up with assault rifles. All of these people should be equal combatants in the fight.
That... totally, utterly, completely shatters my suspension of disbelief so much that I can't play in that world.

Only if you define magic as being superior ex ante. Which it doesn't have to be. Basically, you're making an argument from incredulity. Which isn't exactly convincing. And magic, in most fantasy worlds isn't actually superior. In fact, most of the stories on which D&D is founded have magic users as
1) the enemies slain by the heroes
2) supporting cast.

Merlin? Supposedly powerful. Never actually used it for anything of consequence. Put to permanent sleep by being tricked by his lover. Gandalf? Support character who never really did much flashy magic and mostly fought with a sword. Conan's sorcerers? Generally got knifed or stabbed. Etc.

It's not until much later when the all-powerful caster fantasy shows up. And it's an outgrowth of D&D. And those casters still usually depend on weapons for most of it.

Basically, the "magic == god" idea is a D&D 3e motif.

Sneak Dog

2022-02-21, 05:56 PM

That's the "well, it's high level so we're now playing a different game entirely" model. And it sucks. For everyone. Because the people who wanted to play at one scale generally weren't interested in playing at a different one. So you spent most of the game with someone not having as much fun as possible.

It's also very different from the core assumptions of 5e. Which very much do keep a consistent play style, even if scope of threat changes. The stakes change, but the day-to-day doesn't. Because actually, there's nothing about a D&D character that makes them any good at that larger scale. You're still one person, doing things at the personal level. And that doesn't scale.

I would like things to change as tiers go up. For it to not be the same but with bigger numbers. To be raiding dungeons early, stopping armies later, and finishing up with thwarting a deity. 5e sorta but sorta doesn't do this. Wizards do. Fighters don't.

Wizards no longer need to traverse the wilderness, they teleport. They don't need the macguffin to seal the evil away, they are the macguffin. Clerics needn't visit the oracle, they are the oracle.

Angelalex242

2022-02-21, 06:08 PM

Where is magic stated to be the cheat codes to reality? That's your bias.

A level 19 fighter levels up at the same rate as a level 19 wizard. The CR/adventuring day guidelines don't differentiate. Nothing in the text says to treat them differently. That there is enough to consider them equal. Because that's the default.

Only if you define magic as being superior ex ante. Which it doesn't have to be. Basically, you're making an argument from incredulity. Which isn't exactly convincing. And magic, in most fantasy worlds isn't actually superior. In fact, most of the stories on which D&D is founded have magic users as
1) the enemies slain by the heroes
2) supporting cast.

Merlin? Supposedly powerful. Never actually used it for anything of consequence. Put to permanent sleep by being tricked by his lover. Gandalf? Support character who never really did much flashy magic and mostly fought with a sword. Conan's sorcerers? Generally got knifed or stabbed. Etc.

It's not until much later when the all-powerful caster fantasy shows up. And it's an outgrowth of D&D. And those casters still usually depend on weapons for most of it.

Basically, the "magic == god" idea is a D&D 3e motif.

Gandalf doesn't really count in any of this. No matter what he looks like, Gandalf isn't a wizard. He was a disguised Celestials under orders do hold back as much as possible and inspire people to kill the bad guy. Still...when you look at him, you should be thinking 'Solar using change self to look like an old man' and not 'Wizard.'

HPisBS

2022-02-21, 06:17 PM

Where is magic stated to be the cheat codes to reality? That's your bias.

... It's magic.

...
And magic, in most fantasy worlds isn't actually superior. In fact, most of the stories on which D&D is founded have magic users as
1) the enemies slain by the heroes
2) supporting cast.

Merlin? Supposedly powerful. Never actually used it for anything of consequence. Put to permanent sleep by being tricked by his lover. Gandalf? Support character who never really did much flashy magic and mostly fought with a sword. Conan's sorcerers? Generally got knifed or stabbed. Etc.

It's not until much later when the all-powerful caster fantasy shows up. And it's an outgrowth of D&D. And those casters still usually depend on weapons for most of it.

Basically, the "magic == god" idea is a D&D 3e motif.

And martials hardly even bothered showing up in A Wizard of Earthsea, what's your point?

I would like things to change as tiers go up. For it to not be the same but with bigger numbers. To be raiding dungeons early, stopping armies later, and finishing up with thwarting a deity. 5e sorta but sorta doesn't do this. Wizards do. Fighters don't.

Wizards no longer need to traverse the wilderness, they teleport. They don't need the macguffin to seal the evil away, they are the macguffin. Clerics needn't visit the oracle, they are the oracle.

I echo this. Exactly this.

Schwann145

2022-02-21, 06:18 PM

Where is magic stated to be the cheat codes to reality? That's your bias.
Humans in D&D cannot fly. They are, generally speaking, forced to follow the same rules of physics that we understand in the real world. Geoff the peasant, farming in the hamlet outside of Suzail, capital city of Cormyr, cannot just drop his hoe and take off into the skies. Neither can the Cormyrian War Wizard that is passing by his farm. However, with a quick waggle of fingers, mumble of arcane words, and a wing feather from any bird, the War Wizard can now fly. She couldn't, then she did the thing, and now she can.
If that's not a cheat code to reality, then I don't know what is.

And magic, in most fantasy worlds isn't actually superior. In fact, most of the stories on which D&D is founded have magic users as
1) the enemies slain by the heroes
2) supporting cast.

Merlin? Supposedly powerful. Never actually used it for anything of consequence. Put to permanent sleep by being tricked by his lover. Gandalf? Support character who never really did much flashy magic and mostly fought with a sword. Conan's sorcerers? Generally got knifed or stabbed. Etc.

It's not until much later when the all-powerful caster fantasy shows up. And it's an outgrowth of D&D. And those casters still usually depend on weapons for most of it.

Basically, the "magic == god" idea is a D&D 3e motif.
Magic, in most fantasy worlds, is actually superior, but the ease of applying it is much harder. In D&D, you can cast spells as fast as the fighter is attacking. In most literature, it's WAY more complicated and time-consuming than that, but if their magic isn't interrupted? They're basically unstoppable.

Merlin? I'm not personally all that brushed up on my Arthurian legend lore, but here's a Quora answer going into some detail about Merlin's power:
https://www.quora.com/How-powerful-is-Merlin-in-Arthurian-legend
Gandalf admittedly didn't do much other than manipulate others, because he was a Maia who followed the rules. Another Maia who didn't follow the rules? Sauron. I hear he was pretty powerful.
Conan sorcerers are a perfect example of what I say above: casting spells in Hyborea is a complicated process typically involving living sacrifices and long laborious chanting that takes drastically longer than 3 or so seconds (the way D&D casters do).

I generally agree with you that the power at the end of the game needs to come down, but on balance we're just not on the same page at all. I think you oversell the power of high level wizards. They definitely cannot do many of the fights you seem to accuse them of walking all over. In fact, just dealing single-target damage is a serious struggle for Wizards (whom we'd both agree are by far the most powerful of the caster options).
This feels akin to Batman arguments. "With prep, Batman(/a Wizard) can do anything." Except that's not even close to how the game is played.

sithlordnergal

2022-02-21, 06:47 PM

Infinite worlds === infinite level 20 parties not allied to him.

Yeah, and there's an infinite number of Orcus' for each level 20 party. Its not like there's a single Orcus once you start talking about infinite worlds. If my party, in my game, kill Orcus, your world's Orcus doesn't suddenly disappear. There are worlds where no-one's reached level 20, and can never challenge their Orcus, there are worlds where there are hundreds of level 20 parties, but they realize Orcus is needed to keep order, and there are hundreds of worlds where Orcus died, was usurped by a lesser demon, or just never existed at all. There's no single Orcus for every campaign world. Though it would make for an interesting campaign, a massive team of level 20's are trying to exterminate every iteration of Orcus in every world.

And FR isn't exactly known for good, coherent worldbuilding already. Plus has decades of legacy cruft from writers across tons of editions. And in a world where fireballs (not all that much lower radius than meteor swarm) exist, those soldiers aren't going to be clumped up in fireball formation.

FR may not be known for good world building, but its the world 5e tends to draw from the most. Its why you have Acererak in the Monster Manuel, or references to Waterdeep in the DMG, and why the main group of deities for players to worship tend to be FR deities. FR may be a poorly made world, but its the main setting of 5e. And while soldiers may not be clumped up in Fireball Formation, its pretty hard to spread your troops thin enough to avoid the damage of a 360ft radius, or a trio of 40ft radius spheres/cylinders. The spells I mentioned would still devastate your normal DnD army.

And Mystra? Wasn't killed by mortals. First incarnation sacrificed herself to keep the weave intact. Mortal involved died, horribly. Random mortal promoted. Second incarnation? Killed by Helm while depowered by Ao. Midnight was placed in that seat, despite not really being involved. Third incarnation? Murdered by Cyric at the behest of Shar, but not really. Still alive.

So no, mortals aren't routinely murdering gods. Even in FR. In fact, the default for this edition is that gods are literally unkillable by anyone. You can kill an avatar, but that mostly just irritates the god. Only lesser gods can be killed (the word demigod isn't really a thing in this edition, not directly anyway), and even then usually only in avatar form. And not at the "3-5 per day" rate that a level 20 gonzo-power party can chew through CR 20+ creatures (which is where those avatars fit).

Ohhh, I may have been mixing up Kelemvor Lyonsbane with Mystra. I knew a mortal had something to do with Mystra's first death, what with that mortal casting a spell to try and take her place. But it was Kelemvor Lyonsbane, a regular old Human Fighter, that became the God of the Dead some time after Cyric, a human Fighter/Thief, had killed Bhaal during the Time of Troubles. Bhaal being a former full on deity.

So yeah, mortals can murder gods in DnD. Its a rare thing, but it happens. Which sounds about right since level 20 parties are, you know, rare.

sithlordnergal

2022-02-21, 06:53 PM

Only if you define magic as being superior ex ante. Which it doesn't have to be. Basically, you're making an argument from incredulity. Which isn't exactly convincing. And magic, in most fantasy worlds isn't actually superior. In fact, most of the stories on which D&D is founded have magic users as
1) the enemies slain by the heroes
2) supporting cast.

Merlin? Supposedly powerful. Never actually used it for anything of consequence. Put to permanent sleep by being tricked by his lover. Gandalf? Support character who never really did much flashy magic and mostly fought with a sword. Conan's sorcerers? Generally got knifed or stabbed. Etc.

It's not until much later when the all-powerful caster fantasy shows up. And it's an outgrowth of D&D. And those casters still usually depend on weapons for most of it.

Basically, the "magic == god" idea is a D&D 3e motif.

Actually, magic doesn't work like that in most fantasy worlds. It works like that in some fantasy worlds, but there's a pretty even distribution. DnD may have based itself partially on stories where magic users typically are supporting cast, but it used the magic system of the worlds where magic is the superior ex ante. DnD magic is much closer to The Force in Star Wars than it is to being like Lord of the Rings. A DnD Wizard has powers much closer to Yoda, Palpatine, and Vader, all of whom can wipe out a sizable force of soldiers with their Force, read Magic, powers alone.

So no, the idea that "magic==god" didn't come from 3e, it was around well before 3e.

Psyren

2022-02-21, 08:09 PM

I do. There are explicit statements up thread that if you don't want to play a full caster, you should stop playing by level 10. And that the only non-full caster that could even possibly hang with a full caster is the paladin.

And that that's not only ok, but that's intended and the only good option that preserves class fantasies. That casters are supposed to utterly dominate everything and anyone playing anything else should know that they're utterly outclassed by design.

I mean, you might claim that every table that is somehow able to have fun playing martials in T3 and T4 games isn't really having fun, but I suspect they'll be too busy having fun to notice your protests :smalltongue:

Bosh

2022-02-21, 08:20 PM

Huh, this is quite clever and subtle. Not a bad idea at all.

Kane0

2022-02-21, 08:26 PM

Huh, this is quite clever and subtle. Not a bad idea at all.

Which post sorry?

AntiAuthority

2022-02-21, 09:49 PM

Can someone define what magic is and isn't? An official definition, specifically for D&D, would help greatly but if that's not available, explain to the best of your abilities.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-21, 10:33 PM

Can someone define what magic is and isn't? An official definition, specifically for D&D, would help greatly but if that's not available, explain to the best of your abilities.

The actual, SA-approved answer is everything in D&D is magic. But not all D&D magic is spells. Magic is in and through everything, permeating everything. So there isn't a magic/non-magic distinction. There's a spell/non-spell distinction.

Which is why the "magic is special" claim is just pure bunk. As is the "I'm just an ordinary joe." No, the world is made out of magic, 100%. And there's nothing that says one form of magic (ie spells) is superior to any other form of magic.

MadBear

2022-02-22, 12:50 AM

rel

2022-02-22, 01:55 AM

An easy solution to the issue of the martial boosting magic items being GM dependent is to make them into class features kind of like the wizard spellbook. Then simply fluff these class features as items. For example:

The party reaches level 11.

The wizard has spent the last 2 weeks diligently scribbling in their magic book.
Because of all this effort the wizard spontaneously learns a new spell.

Meanwhile the fighter has spent the last two weeks reforging part of their own soul into a weapon of power.
Because of all this effort the fighter now has some spooky ghost powers.

AdAstra

2022-02-22, 02:07 AM

So on the one hand, I'm really happy to see interesting dialogue happening around a thread I made (that doesn't happen often). On the other, it seems that almost none of it has anything to do with the proposed solution.

In regards to comics, I actually think Captain Americas shield, Batmans gadgets, and Ironmans suits are a great example of ways to make a normal human seem even more superior. Moreover, look at a lot of fantasy trash books (I say this lovingly as someone who loves these types of read and toss books), and you'll see a theme of the hero if their not inherently magical, becoming more awesome as they quest and find powerful magical items.

The reason I like my idea as a foundation for a solution, is that it inherently gets back to D&D's origins as a dungeon delver. The wizard is looking for lost arcane spells to add to their spellbook, the cleric for divine artifacts of their gods, and the fighter looking for magical equipment that makes them better. The biggest thing my solution does to impact this is encourage the wizard to not be looking for magical loot, but magical spells, while the fighter is the one utilizing the magical equipment found.

With that said, does Captain America's shield put him on par with Dr. Strange? no, of course not, but it at least gives him something.

I should also note, that in my solution, the magical equipment should focus on giving the players new ways to interact with the game and not merely be a boring +1 sword/armor. That does nothing of interest. A + 1/2/3 shield is statistically good, and worth having, but does nothing to give the player a new way to interact with the game. A shield of energy absorption that can use the fighters reaction to gain resistance to one type of damage (fire/lightning/etc./etc.) and then infuse their weapon with that damage type on their next turn if they attack with said shield feels a lot more fun. Heck at higher level, let it nullify a single damage type once per round. Now the mighty fighter is walking towards the dragon daring them to use their breath weapon. A +2 constitution belt again is statistically significant but doesn't give new playing options. A belt that lets a person grow to the size of an ogre or shrink to the size of a ant (along with the accompanying stealth benefits) gives the fighter a way to interact with the exploring pillar that they can't normally do anything in.

I'm far from a game designer, but the overarching point, is that martials having unique and powerful magic in D&D shouldn't break immersion the way a fighter suddenly being able to Hulk Leap across a city do to their leg day workout would. Now I am seeing potential issues that I do have to address:

1. Multiclassing- I have some ideas for this
2. Magical Item DM dependance: This is probably the biggest issue. You'd have to explicity let DM's know that they need to provide their players with interesting magical items and these items should be geared mostly towards martials and less so towards wizards
3. Wizard player feeling left out: My solution does obviously make a wizard feel slightly worse, because now they can't have as much magic. To me the simple solution is to reward the wizard player differently. Their class abilities late game, make them powerhouses in all 3 pillars (not necessarily at the same time/day, but that is often mitigated), so reward the wizard with new spells that are hard to find and obtain. Maybe level 1-5 spells can be bought in town, but make any spell 6th level and above super rare taking time and research to find. I'm currently playing DCC and the way the wizard in that setting has to find their spells makes the search fun and rewarding.

I may have missed other critiques but those are my current thoughts.

As I mentioned upthread, I think point 1 could be addressed by just having attunement slots scale with class level (or gain them when you gain certain levels, that sorta thing, probably easier). So Fighters get more attunement slots as they level up than Wizards do, maybe 1 slot per 3 levels vs 1 per 5 levels or whatever, just as an example. Thus a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard should have an intermediate amount of attunement slots.

Number 2 is, yeah, not the best. There's a lot to be said for not strictly requiring specific amounts of items as part of progression, particularly when said items can be lost or have limited uses. A Wizard can at least copy their spellbook and can feasibly "rebuild" it even if completely lost, much harder to justify the Fighter getting back their Sword of Murderizing without magic item shops. Wealth by level was always a pretty lame system.

3. Another solution that would work to alleviate this even if all classes had the same number of attunement slots: Just have high level (or just particularly powerful) spells be like magic items and take up attunement slots, being acquired or made in a similar manner. It keeps the number of actual magic items Wizards can have more limited, still lets them feel like they're questing for special things for their character, and makes those powerful spells feel all the more valuable while keeping them in check a bit.

Earlier I also proposed having attunement slots be much greater, but having different items taking up different amounts of attunement. Would probably fit better with a system meant to involve lots of magic items better than a smaller number of one-size-fits-all slots (also fits well with the thing I proposed earlier about slots being based on the levels you have in certain classes).

Angelalex242

2022-02-22, 02:10 AM

Ironically, the Paladins, who need this least, are the most likely to have forged parts of themselves into Holy Avengers. Already existing Holy Avengers are made by Paladins who forged their souls into their swords. Indeed, if Holy Avengers are intelligent, well, that's what happens when a Paladin forges /all/ of his soul into his sword. It's possible to overdo it.

Florian

2022-02-22, 03:11 AM

@PhoenixPhyre:

I think you misunderstood me in parts.

I don´t think there is a bigger problem to solve, that D&D 2nd, 3rd, 5th and PF already worked fine for the majority of people, that the perceived imbalance never happened and there were only occasional breakdowns that could be fixed quite quick at each table.

I also think there is a group of people who have fun playing the game in a way that it's always a competeition between player and DM, or player and player, in the sense that they want to beat and counter everything that is thrown at them with the right choice of build, spell and so on.

Me, I don't like it, but accept that it's a valid gaming style.

The other thing is using "versimilitude" as an argument: Just No.

Someone pointed out a working model: Tier 1: Dungeons, Tier 2: Wilderness, Tier 3: Power, Tier 4: Planes.

First of all, this is a game, the only people that matter are the players a the table. The idea mentioned is not about changing the play style, ok, maybe in the sense that Tier 3 accentuates that they are among the movers and shakes of any prime world when they hit those levels, but that we preserve the versimilutide of a game world by having some of the over the top things happen away from it.

@MadBear:

I would like to see more distinctive and in a sense more uniquely powerful magic items that can only be attuned by certain classes, or by characters without spell slots, or that need certain class features to fuel them.

AntiAuthority

2022-02-22, 04:45 AM

The actual, SA-approved answer is everything in D&D is magic. But not all D&D magic is spells. Magic is in and through everything, permeating everything. So there isn't a magic/non-magic distinction. There's a spell/non-spell distinction.

Which is why the "magic is special" claim is just pure bunk. As is the "I'm just an ordinary joe." No, the world is made out of magic, 100%. And there's nothing that says one form of magic (ie spells) is superior to any other form of magic.

Thank you. I can see you're in support of martials being equal to spellcasters, while not casting spells themselves (spell slots, components, etc.) While magic itself wasn't defined by your comment, it did help point me into this description for Antimagic Field, which does support what you're saying of everything being magic by stating:

This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse.

Since magic is noted to be suffused with the multiverse itself, it would stand to reason that the beings inside of said multiverse are also suffused with magic to some degree.

But still no solid definition of what magic is beyond being magic. Which is a circular definition, so I would appreciate some more thoughts on this.

Does anyone have any issue with magic being defined, "Does not exist in real life" or "Imaginary people, creatures, objects and/or abilities"? Even if said universes are sci-fi or use something not called magic, is it still referred to as magic as long as it doesn't work that way in our reality? If not, does anyone have a different definition? I feel this is important otherwise people may not be talking about the same thing when referring to magic and can end up talking pass each other, so wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page.

Also SA-approved? I feel a bit dumb, but I'm unsure if that's an abbreviation for Special Abilities from 3.5/PF1E or something else entirely. Could you elaborate?

Kane0

2022-02-22, 05:11 AM

But still no solid definition of what magic is beyond being magic. Which is a circular definition, so I would appreciate some more thoughts on this.

I think thats more a linguistic problem than game problem. Magic is a catchall word used to describe pretty much anything that doesnt conform to 'normality', or reality as we know it (unless we're talking about stage magic, but we arent). Similar to using the term supernatural, its a binary 'beyond normal' rather than a solid description of what something is and how it works. That then sparks the various discussions of a system to depict such things, hard vs soft magic systems, etc.

So like, stating that everything is magic in a fantasy setting would in turn imply that nothing is, to steal from a certain supervillain.

Edit: SA would be Sage Advice I believe.

Schwann145

2022-02-22, 05:16 AM

But still no solid definition of what magic is beyond being magic. Which is a circular definition, so I would appreciate some more thoughts on this.
You're not going to find a solid definition. Every setting or table is going to be free to define things like magic however they wish. Some settings don't put any thought into it and just run with the idea that magic exists. Other settings put a lot of thought into it, such as Forgotten Realms with it's Weave (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Weave?so=search) and Raw Magic (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Raw_magic).

But, very generally speaking, magic is going to be a physical force in the universe, akin to gravity, electromagnetism, strong, or weak. It will exist as a law that, somehow, creatures have learned to manipulate.

AntiAuthority

2022-02-22, 05:57 AM

I think thats more a linguistic problem than game problem. Magic is a catchall word used to describe pretty much anything that doesnt conform to 'normality', or reality as we know it (unless we're talking about stage magic, but we arent). Similar to using the term supernatural, its a binary 'beyond normal' rather than a solid description of what something is and how it works. That then sparks the various discussions of a system to depict such things, hard vs soft magic systems, etc.

So like, stating that everything is magic in a fantasy setting would in turn imply that nothing is, to steal from a certain supervillain.

Edit: SA would be Sage Advice I believe.

Thank you! First time I'm hearing of Sage Advice... I feel out of touch lol.

So anything beyond normal (like moving faster than light despite the laws of our reality saying that's impossible) in our world would be determined as magic is what you're saying?

You're not going to find a solid definition. Every setting or table is going to be free to define things like magic however they wish. Some settings don't put any thought into it and just run with the idea that magic exists. Other settings put a lot of thought into it, such as Forgotten Realms with it's Weave (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Weave?so=search) and Raw Magic (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Raw_magic).

But, very generally speaking, magic is going to be a physical force in the universe, akin to gravity, electromagnetism, strong, or weak. It will exist as a law that, somehow, creatures have learned to manipulate.

Interesting... So we can agree magic's definition (and potency/rules since the definition isn't set in stone) differs based on the setting and whoever is writing it?

But would you consider a being that does things impossible in our world (even if vaguely explained through pseudo science tech babble or weird genetics or something else) to be magical in nature or not magic?

Florian

2022-02-22, 06:03 AM

Interesting... So we can agree magic's definition (and potency/rules since the definition isn't set in stone) differs based on the setting and whoever is writing it?

But would you consider a being that does things impossible in our world to be magical in nature or not magic?

I think answering that is easier when you first take a look at systems that are based on an integrated approach.

Edit: Integrated approach means, that "magic" is treated as a normal part of the in-universe physics that just hasn´t been fully understood and explored yet. As such, even while they are not understood (yet!), there is a set of laws that gouverns how "magic" works, in parallel to our laws of physics.

In this case, something like a "spell", "prayer" or "ritual" is something that has been proven to work and can be replicated, most of the time without knowing how it is connected with the rest. For example, when a "harvest time" ritual really works with proven results or when something like drawing a magic circle against evil can be done with the knowledge how to do so.

Important point being that "magic" follows a set of rules and while being above and beyond normal physics, it interacts in a plausible manner with it and it doesn't break its own rules doing so.

Edit 2: Just for the fun of it: Assume a planet where "mother earth" is a thing and you can tap into that along ley lines, very easy where those meet and form a nexus. You can simply learn and train some skills that are more or less "mundane" when you do them near one of those ley lines and you can perform more powerful things when closer to a nexus. So you could learn to teleport from nexus to nexus, or phase door along one of the bigger lines or fly along one of the weaker ones. The ability here is keyed to the ley lines, the skill to tap into it to the character.

In this case, a Wizard would be a researcher trying to find out more uses and "spells" in dealing with the ley lines, a "Mage" would be someone who is more training how to tap into them or how to store some of that energy in themselves.

HPisBS

2022-02-22, 12:05 PM

But would you consider a being that does things impossible in our world (even if vaguely explained through pseudo science tech babble or weird genetics or something else) to be magical in nature or not magic?

Take something like all the applications of Eezo, or "Element Zero" in Mass Effect. I'd say that whole concept dwells in a gray area. That's because, while there is a scientific-ish explanation along the lines of "This new element was discovered which creates a mass-affecting field whenever an electric current is run through it," the story also has people who are essentially able to use telekinetic powers because they were exposed to Element Zero in utero.

How are people able to do use the Eezo in their bodies to cast spells create mass-affecting fields? By manipulating the electric currents of their bodies. (Bioelectricity is a real thing; it's part of what makes your brain and nervous system work.) How are they able to manipulate that? Training. Ok, but how do they control their bodies' electric currents - positive and negative - so precisely that they can make the element in their bodies create directed phenomena multiple meters away outside of their bodies? Ummm... physical pneumonics -- using gestures to cause neurons to fire in particular sequences?

I'd say that ^ is a gray area that's more sci-fi than fantasy, since it has a physics-based explanation. "Magic," on the other hand, may be said to operate under various principles, but it's either some kind of mystical explanation, or it's left as something that people don't - or can't - really understand.

Since magic is noted to be suffused with the multiverse itself, it would stand to reason that the beings inside of said multiverse are also suffused with magic to some degree.

Indeed. Which makes opposition to letting higher level martials have more explicitly magical capabilities all the more strange. It seems perfectly reasonable that, by the time Druids are suffused with enough magic to Transport (whole parties) via Plants, the Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, and others would also be suffused with enough magic to at least enhance their most-used body parts to clearly supernatural levels.

- Certain subclasses, such as Rune Knight, go a long way towards giving martials incredible things to do, and (nearly?) nobody seems to have a problem with that. So maybe that's where the best solution lies? If martials can manage to get enough through their subclasses that they feel like they're in roughly equivalent echelons with the spellcasters they spend all of their time with, then there should be room for everyone to be pretty happy.

... Right?

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 12:12 PM

Rage literally is described as giving supernatural power, FYI:

They can enter a berserk state where rage takes over, giving them superhuman strength and resilience

Psyren

2022-02-22, 12:32 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 12:41 PM

Superhuman doesn't necessarily mean magic though. Elves have superhuman vision and hearing, but it's entirely mundane from a game perspective. I view Barbarian Rage the same way.

(That's not to say that barbarians can't be magical of course - in fact, arguably all of them save perhaps Berserker and Battlerager use at least a little.)

There's a strong case to be made that elves' vision and hearing is due to the background magic of the setting.

Personally, I'd say that everything fantastic (ie not part of our reality) in a D&D world is "magical" (ie due to the background magic of the setting). While it's mundane (in the sense of being common and part of their nature) there, it's of magical origin.

Remember, RAW is that

The worlds within the D&D multiverse are magical places. All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse.

Every darn thing is magical. There is nothing that does not partake in, benefit from, and rely on this raw magic. Spells and other coherent magical effects are not the only form it takes. In fact, they're the least common form. It's magic all the way down.

HPisBS

2022-02-22, 01:06 PM

Every darn thing is magical. There is nothing that does not partake in, benefit from, and rely on this raw magic. Spells and other coherent magical effects are not the only form it takes. In fact, they're the least common form. It's magic all the way down.

So why oppose letting the Fighters and Barbarians have enough magic in them to feel as formidable and dynamic as the Sorcerers and Druids? Earlier, I called out Rune Knight because, runes aside, something as simple as growing to large - and then huge - a few times per day can have an immense payoff both in and out of combat for a Str-based character.

Psyren

2022-02-22, 01:09 PM

There's a strong case to be made that elves' vision and hearing is due to the background magic of the setting.

Personally, I'd say that everything fantastic (ie not part of our reality) in a D&D world is "magical" (ie due to the background magic of the setting). While it's mundane (in the sense of being common and part of their nature) there, it's of magical origin.

Remember, RAW is that
[/B]

Every darn thing is magical. There is nothing that does not partake in, benefit from, and rely on this raw magic. Spells and other coherent magical effects are not the only form it takes. In fact, they're the least common form. It's magic all the way down.

Sure, I'm not saying those things aren't ultimately rooted in some form of background or distant magic, but those still aren't magical effects as the game defines them. An elf walking into an antimagic field won't suddenly be blinded/deafened or even have their senses attenuate, nor can you dispel a barbarian's rage.

So why oppose letting the Fighters and Barbarians have enough magic in them to feel as formidable and dynamic as the Sorcerers and Druids?

How do you define "as formidable and dynamic?" A fighter having as much magic as a Sorcerer or Druid would beg the question of why spellcasting classes exist in the first place, so ideally they'd have less, and then we're largely haggling over price.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 01:18 PM

Sure, I'm not saying those things aren't ultimately rooted in some form of background or distant magic, but those still aren't magical effects as the game defines them. An elf walking into an antimagic field won't suddenly be blinded/deafened or even have their senses attenuate, nor can you dispel a barbarian's rage.

AMF's name is a bit of a lie. It's anti-spell field. And Sage Advice has a lot to say on this. Something can be magical (from our perspective, talking about not being tethered to earth reality's constraints) while not being affected by dispel or amf. Not being affected by that doesn't make it non-magical from the world's perspective, which is what matters here. And yes, they should use a different word to discuss the differences.

How do you define "as formidable and dynamic?" A fighter having as much magic as a Sorcerer or Druid would beg the question of why spellcasting classes exist in the first place, so ideally they'd have less, and then we're largely haggling over price.

No? Spells are one form of magic. A fighter's "magic" is a different form. Both can exist, even though neither is more powerful. They're both fantastic abilities. There's no fundamental "spells >>> everything else" concept built into D&D. It's all in how you access and manipulate the natural magic that matters.

As an example, take FFXIV. In that world, everything the characters (yes, just about any of them) do involves manipulating aether. Everything from healing to teleporting across time and space (literally, teleporting to the end of creation) to a samurai's sword bursts. It's all magic. And it's a major plot point that one particular group can't natively manipulate aether, so they have to build machines that do it for them.

It's all magic. Spells are not some superior form of magic. Just a different one.

So why oppose letting the Fighters and Barbarians have enough magic in them to feel as formidable and dynamic as the Sorcerers and Druids? Earlier, I called out Rune Knight because, runes aside, something as simple as growing to large - and then huge - a few times per day can have an immense payoff both in and out of combat for a Str-based character.

I don't oppose it at all. In fact, I claim that they already do have enough magic to feel as formidable and dynamic as sorcerers and druids should feel. It's a disagreement about what the upper bound on the power level should be. I think it should end well short of where optimized characters (and some broken spells) have it now. You disagree and want that to be the floor.

I don't oppose leaning into the "everything's magic" idea. In fact, I fully support it. I just don't want it to be spells. And want a lot of what is currently spells to not be spells anymore and just be normal things that anyone (because they're magic) can do. And to tame some of the worst of the spells.

HPisBS

2022-02-22, 02:09 PM

How do you define "as formidable and dynamic?" A fighter having as much magic as a Sorcerer or Druid would beg the question of why spellcasting classes exist in the first place, so ideally they'd have less, and then we're largely haggling over price.

I don't oppose it at all. In fact, I claim that they already do have enough magic to feel as formidable and dynamic as sorcerers and druids should feel. It's a disagreement about what the upper bound on the power level should be. I think it should end well short of where optimized characters (and some broken spells) have it now. You disagree and want that to be the floor.

I don't oppose leaning into the "everything's magic" idea. In fact, I fully support it. I just don't want it to be spells. And want a lot of what is currently spells to not be spells anymore and just be normal things that anyone (because they're magic) can do. And to tame some of the worst of the spells.

Ah. Then let me explain / refine the understanding of my (and others'?) position for you.

I'd say that what Phoenix seems to prefer for "the upper bounds of power levels" is accomplished fairly well by treating lvl 10 or 12 or so as "max level" for the campaign. Certainly not as "the floor" lol. (That'd be current lvl 1, or maybe even lvl 0.)

I'd define "as formidable and dynamic as a Sorcerer or Druid" to be something like "Having incredible abilities that help a PC to feel like a hero from myths and legends, while also providing means for exceptional contributions outside of combat."

Something like Eyes of the Eagle as a class ability is a nearly perfect example of what I view as appropriate for high-level martials. Or at least for high-level half-martials like Ranger.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 02:11 PM

So why oppose letting the Fighters and Barbarians have enough magic in them to feel as formidable and dynamic as the Sorcerers and Druids? Earlier, I called out Rune Knight because, runes aside, something as simple as growing to large - and then huge - a few times per day can have an immense payoff both in and out of combat for a Str-based character.

Ah. Then let me explain / refine the understanding of my (and others'?) position for you.

I'd say that what Phoenix seems to prefer for "the upper bounds of power levels" is accomplished fairly well by treating lvl 10 or 12 or so as "max level" for the campaign. Certainly not as "the floor" lol. (That'd be current lvl 1, or maybe even lvl 0.)

I'd define "as formidable and dynamic as a Sorcerer or Druid" to be something like "Having incredible abilities that help a PC to feel like a hero from myths and legends, while also providing means for exceptional contributions out of combat."

Something like Eyes of the Eagle as a class ability is a perfect example of what I view as an appropriate for high-level martials.

Except that there are many T3-T4 abilities even from spell-casters that are fine. Because they're at the "personal power" scale. And yes, having non-casters have things in that same scale range would also be fine. But you're still basically only affecting (directly) the things around you, and major threats are still major.

Contrast that with "I've got an army of simulacrums". What I object to is the idea that high-level D&D needs to fundamentally be a different game than low level. Or that the dominant source of plot-affecting power needs to come from class abilities. I've run a couple 1-20 campaigns, including those with setting-altering consequences. Including toppling a god. Not defeating him directly, but being the fulcrum to maneuver the god into a position where he had to break the rules that govern gods and thus was vulnerable to being deposed. The characters (very much intentionally) did not replace him. But that involved working with (and being the unwitting catspaws of) several other gods and ascendant powers, plus a lot of hard work building up the groundwork, not simply marching up to the god's house and casting some spells.

And in none of those 1-20 campaigns did the spell-caster's direct abilities have deciding influence. Sure, having a helm of teleportation and a cubic gate (one asked for as a quest reward, the other randomly rolled as loot) made things easier, but those weren't required. Planeshift was a nice convenience in some cases, but really not critical. Simulacrum played a narrative role, but not a mechanical one (the sim acted as a blind so the characters could act without being seen, plus some post-campaign narrative stuff). What carried the day was
* relationships they built up during play
* decisions they made based on the characters
* goals they set
* working together as a team.
* their connections to the world and its events

Edit: I should note that none of these setting-shaking events were planned by me, except as a natural outgrowth of where they were going and what they'd already done. Planning endgames requires too much work, so I just go with the flow.

Amnestic

2022-02-22, 02:25 PM

Putting my money where my mouth is on trying my hand at a half-caster wizard, since I already did a sorcerer before. Intended to be compatible with existing subclasses.

Wizard Redux (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/vy1A85Nk9bsz)

Spells slots: Reduced to Artificer half-casting slots and progression.

Spellbook: Mostly unchanged, but you gain spells at a lower rate - 2 spells on even levels, 1 spell on odd levels.

Arcane Recovery: Unchanged.

New Arcane Armour: 2nd level, 'permanent' mage armour, to compensate for lower number of spell slots. If dispelled returns after a rest, so may still want it on your list.

New Unravel Spell: 3rd level, lets you "learn" a spell that either targets you directly or with an AoE (so you can't copy conjure animals, find steed, etc.). Gives you some boons against the "learned" spell.

New Boosted Formula: 5th level, lets you upcast spells for 'free' IntMod/long rest by 1 spell slot level. Increases to 2 spell slot levels at 13th.

New Lingering Cantrip: 5th level, gives minor damage synergy when you and your party use the same damage type.

New Arcane Intellect: 7th level. Expertise in Arcana, advantage on spell scroll casting when not on your spell list, and boosts effective level of Counterspell/Dispel Magic by 1.

New Reduced Components: 9th level. Reduces cost of material components for you by half.

New Spellsteal: 11th level. Bonus action lets you try to steal an active spell effect on a creature and move it to you. Unlimited uses until successful, then refreshes on LR. Improves at 17th to refreshing on a short or long rest, and lets you move the spell to another friendly creature instead of just you.

New Spell Sequencer: 15th level. Lets you store spells with total spell slots=prof bonus to then be unleashed as an action. Must be targeted on the same creature/point.

Spell Mastery: Unchanged.

Signature Spells: Unchanged.

I think I got the 'feel' that I wanted down. They're still defined by lots of spells but applying its use in different ways. Better than an Artificer? Worse? Too much? Not enough? I really don't know.

Psyren

2022-02-22, 02:29 PM

AMF's name is a bit of a lie. It's anti-spell field. And Sage Advice has a lot to say on this. Something can be magical (from our perspective, talking about not being tethered to earth reality's constraints) while not being affected by dispel or amf. Not being affected by that doesn't make it non-magical from the world's perspective, which is what matters here. And yes, they should use a different word to discuss the differences.

Right, I know about the Sage Advice entry and I completely agree with it. It specifically discusses the the two types of "magic" in D&D and that the rules generally refer to the second type when they describe something as "magical," which is what I was referring to; whereas something like a dragon's breath, an elf's eyesight, or even perhaps a barbarian's rage would be the first type (physiological/background magic of the multiverse).

It's all magic. Spells are not some superior form of magic. Just a different one.

I agree that spells aren't an inherently superior form of magic - but what sets spells apart from other magical abilities is their scope. When Fighters and Barbarians learn magic, it's largely related to... well, fighting and being barbaric. And rogues tend towards magic that lets them be sneaky and underhanded. So what I wouldn't really expect to see are magical barbarians summoning angels from the heavens or magical rogues that raise the dead or transform into hulking monstrosities, but I would expect spells that can do all of those things to exist even if they're not all available to the same classes.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 02:35 PM

Right, I know about the Sage Advice entry and I completely agree with it. It specifically discusses the the two types of "magic" in D&D and that the rules generally refer to the second type when they describe something as "magical," which is what I was referring to; whereas something like a dragon's breath, an elf's eyesight, or even perhaps a barbarian's rage would be the first type (physiological/background magic of the multiverse).

For me, the key thing here is that verisimilitude cares mostly about the wider scope. Not just what the rules care about. So a fighter can be "magical" (ie capable of more than a real-life person can) without having rules-relevant "magic".

I agree that spells aren't an inherently superior form of magic - but what sets spells apart from other magical abilities is their scope. When Fighters and Barbarians learn magic, it's largely related to... well, fighting and being barbaric. And rogues tend towards magic that lets them be sneaky and underhanded. So what I wouldn't really expect to see are magical barbarians summoning angels from the heavens or magical rogues that raise the dead or transform into hulking monstrosities, but I would expect spells that can do all of those things to exist even if they're not all available to the same classes.

I don't disagree. Although I question the need for spells to do a lot of that--I think the game would be better if a lot of the "utility" magical functionality were separated from the "spell system". So that there's no spell monopoly on most of it. It's still absolutely magical, but spells and spell-casters (in this model) would focus on the "things that need to take effect immediately". And most of their effects would be temporary and limited. Basically
* slow but powerful? Not spells. Anyone can learn to do it, separate from class features and progression.
* immediate but limited and mostly temporary? Spells. Requires class features and progression.

Edit: I could see a barbarian who summons the spirits of his ancestors. Or channels the primal force of fury into literally hulking out. Or a rogue who could literally slip into/through shadows (teleporting, planeshift, etc). There's a lot more leeway there than I think people think.

Florian

2022-02-22, 05:00 PM

Edit: I could see a barbarian who summons the spirits of his ancestors. Or channels the primal force of fury into literally hulking out. Or a rogue who could literally slip into/through shadows (teleporting, planeshift, etc). There's a lot more leeway there than I think people think.

Hehe. One of my most favoured characters in Pathfinder was a "Complete failure to be a Paladin", a foul-mouthed, unkempt female mounted-combat Barbarian who went in full "Serra Angel" mode during a rage, growing angelic wings, a full halo and stuff like that.

I also had a lot of fun with a "Null". Your basic longsword, shield, full plate fighter, who could do stuff like head-butt a wall of force/force cage, block an incoming Dominate with the shield, hack thru any existing magical effect and just ride piggy-back on any teleport/plane shift spell. That was one very determined Viking ;)

Schwann145

2022-02-22, 05:32 PM

Every darn thing is magical. There is nothing that does not partake in, benefit from, and rely on this raw magic. Spells and other coherent magical effects are not the only form it takes. In fact, they're the least common form. It's magic all the way down.
Everything is magical in the same way that everything is electromagnetic; yes, this is technically true, but practically it doesn't mean anything.

AMF's name is a bit of a lie. It's anti-spell field.
Eh, yes and no? It's anti-spell, anti-magic item, anti-summoned creatures, and anti-magical effect. The confusion (if you can call it that) is "what is considered a magical effect in a world where a bunch of stuff is described as magical?"
A dragon's breath is infused with magic, but it's not considered a "magical effect" the way that, say, a wall of force that was conjured by a spell is considered one.
Where it gets very hazy is class abilities. The Sage Advice "Is The Breath Weapon of a Dragon Magical?" (pg 20) (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) goes a long way to clear up the issue, but it's not necessarily obvious on it's face if you haven't familiarized yourself with the bullet points of the SA.
For example, an Echo Knight's Manifest Echo is in no way considered a spell, but it is a magical effect so it would not function in an AMZ.

I don't disagree. Although I question the need for spells to do a lot of that--I think the game would be better if a lot of the "utility" magical functionality were separated from the "spell system". So that there's no spell monopoly on most of it. It's still absolutely magical, but spells and spell-casters (in this model) would focus on the "things that need to take effect immediately". And most of their effects would be temporary and limited. Basically
* slow but powerful? Not spells. Anyone can learn to do it, separate from class features and progression.
* immediate but limited and mostly temporary? Spells. Requires class features and progression.
I agree with this (thought I'd bet we disagree on the particulars, lol). For instance, I'm a big fan of letting anyone cast rituals, spellcaster or not. If Sam and Dean can do it in Supernatural, then why can't Bob the Fighter do it too?

But I think the issue is that the game lacks a variety of magic systems and systems for non-spell magic, and it's a glaring issue. However, it's intrinsically tied to the Class system, so there's kind of no fixing the problem. If you want to learn a specific type of non-spell magic, you *have* to take the *specific* subclass that offers it, and that's the only avenue.
Do you want to learn Dunamancy? You can be a Fighter or a Wizard. Wanna be a dunamancy rogue? Too bad, doesn't exist.
Do you want to use Rune Magic instead of classic Vancian spellcasting? Too bad, it exists narratively but not as a player option. "Best I can do is Rune Knight."
Etc.

MadBear

2022-02-22, 05:36 PM

Edit: I could see a barbarian who summons the spirits of his ancestors. Or channels the primal force of fury into literally hulking out. Or a rogue who could literally slip into/through shadows (teleporting, planeshift, etc). There's a lot more leeway there than I think people think.

One of my absolute favorite one shot characters was a Ancestral Guardian Barbarian dwarf whose ancestors wanted to see him die. The fluff being that his negligence got his entire clan killed, and they were working as hard as they could to see him die. So his Ancestral protectors ability was done so that his ancestors literally made others hard to see so that his enemies would focus on killing him.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 05:49 PM

Everything is magical in the same way that everything is electromagnetic; yes, this is technically true, but practically it doesn't mean anything.

Eh, yes and no? It's anti-spell, anti-magic item, anti-summoned creatures, and anti-magical effect. The confusion (if you can call it that) is "what is considered a magical effect in a world where a bunch of stuff is described as magical?"
A dragon's breath is infused with magic, but it's not considered a "magical effect" the way that, say, a wall of force that was conjured by a spell is considered one.
Where it gets very hazy is class abilities. The Sage Advice "Is The Breath Weapon of a Dragon Magical?" (pg 20) (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) goes a long way to clear up the issue, but it's not necessarily obvious on it's face if you haven't familiarized yourself with the bullet points of the SA.
For example, an Echo Knight's Manifest Echo is in no way considered a spell, but it is a magical effect so it would not function in an AMZ.

The point is that the game-rule definition is utterly irrelevant for what we're talking about here, which is narrative connection and possibility. Once you realize that even champion fighters aren't tied to the real world human limits any more than wizards are, the only question is how to express that properly. There's no verisimilitude issue anymore with non-magic keeping up with magic. It's all magic in all the ways that matter for the narrative.

I agree with this (thought I'd bet we disagree on the particulars, lol). For instance, I'm a big fan of letting anyone cast rituals, spellcaster or not. If Sam and Dean can do it in Supernatural, then why can't Bob the Fighter do it too?

But I think the issue is that the game lacks a variety of magic systems and systems for non-spell magic, and it's a glaring issue. However, it's intrinsically tied to the Class system, so there's kind of no fixing the problem. If you want to learn a specific type of non-spell magic, you *have* to take the *specific* subclass that offers it, and that's the only avenue.
Do you want to learn Dunamancy? You can be a Fighter or a Wizard. Wanna be a dunamancy rogue? Too bad, doesn't exist.
Do you want to use Rune Magic instead of classic Vancian spellcasting? Too bad, it exists narratively but not as a player option. "Best I can do is Rune Knight."
Etc.

I don't really care about class-based magic systems. I don't want spell casting or things like spell casting to be the core of how people interact. I'm fine with leaving particular avenues mostly tied to classes.

But effects? Those, I want to democratize. So that spells (and spell-like system) don't have a monopoly. Break the link between "is a cool thing" and "is a spell or spell-like thing". Make a lot of them just things people do.

At the same time, I don't want a world where the expectation is that top-tier people are casually overthrowing gods, waltzing into the Abyss and overthrowing demon princes on a whim, or otherwise acting like 3e T1/PO casters. I want the top tier to be substantially lower than that, for everyone. The other idea I want to break is the idea that "is magic === can do anything". I want magic to be part of the world. And since the world's isn't continually overthrown by people on a casual whim, magic that can do so doesn't match what I want.

Psyren

2022-02-22, 06:02 PM

* slow but powerful? Not spells. Anyone can learn to do it, separate from class features and progression.

Uh, any examples? Because I can think of a number of "slow but powerful" things that only make sense as spells, or at the very least features of specific classes. Resurrection is a big one that comes to mind, and that includes related effects like Clone.

Edit: I could see a barbarian who summons the spirits of his ancestors.

Yes and no for me. Summoning spirits to infuse/buff himself, or to be a lower-level spell effect like Spirit Guardians, I could absolutely see. But if his ancestor is now an angel or fiend who can fight on par with himself, I'd probably tap the brakes on that one.

I'm fine with a teleporting rogue as long as they're not crossing the entire continent in a stride.

PhantomSoul

2022-02-22, 06:13 PM

Uh, any examples? Because I can think of a number of "slow but powerful" things that only make sense as spells, or at the very least features of specific classes. Resurrection is a big one that comes to mind, and that includes related effects like Clone.

That's not the norm for spells though;
- 363 spells have a Casting Time of one Action
- 39 spells have a Casting Time of one Bonus Action
- 6 spells have a Casting Time of one Reaction
---
- 36 spells have a Casting Time of one Minute
---
- 18 spells have a Casting Time of 10 Minutes
---
- 13 spells have a Casting Time of 1 hour
---
- 3 spells have a Casting Time longer than 1 hour

So slow-but-powerful exists, but even at higher spell levels there's no lack of "fast" spells (and powerful ones for play at that). Often not the world-shaping, but there are limited long-term world-shaping spells anyway... and even something like Plant Growth is quick!

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 06:46 PM

Uh, any examples? Because I can think of a number of "slow but powerful" things that only make sense as spells, or at the very least features of specific classes. Resurrection is a big one that comes to mind, and that includes related effects like Clone.

As for examples, my working list is in this Google Doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/18BwA_2ZVFezeVr7DaCrmSEvHE3DMsUHYsHoY8ADqnL8/edit?usp=sharing). Ranging all over the power spectrum. And with speeds ranging from a "full round" (basically action + bonus action + movement + reaction, takes effect on your next turn) to 24 hours. Each with a mechanism to dissuade spamming (or not, some are fine being spammed, such as mending).

I'm totally ok with Resurrection not being class-bound. Revivify, sure. But I'm fine with a party of fighters learning how to call on divine (or infernal, or primal, or...) aid to raise a fallen comrade. Sure, a cleric might be able to do it better, faster, or cheaper, but not exclusively. And why should a death cleric be able to resurrect people?

But generally, the split I've tried to make is between "utility" effects that aren't really directly combat affecting and those that have mostly a battlefield use. And I'd turn most of the rest of the "slow but powerful" things into actual features, not spells.

Yes and no for me. Summoning spirits to infuse/buff himself, or to be a lower-level spell effect like Spirit Guardians, I could absolutely see. But if his ancestor is now an angel or fiend who can fight on par with himself, I'd probably tap the brakes on that one.

I'd say no one should be summoning anything that can fight on par with themselves, or even close. Barbarians included. But I could see summoning a horde of ancestors to rush out and <do thing>.

I'm fine with a teleporting rogue as long as they're not crossing the entire continent in a stride.

Why not? The shadows link everywhere.

Schwann145

2022-02-22, 07:12 PM

At the same time, I don't want a world where the expectation is that top-tier people are casually overthrowing gods, waltzing into the Abyss and overthrowing demon princes on a whim, or otherwise acting like 3e T1/PO casters.
But this doesn't happen unless the DM explicitly allows it, and that isn't the assumption of the game by any means. A level 20 party is *nothing* compared to a deity, and drastically weaker than the likes of a demonic Prince or devilish Archduke.
For instance, the Forgotten Realms gets a lot of flak from people because of the number of ridiculously powerful NPCs that exist there. They exist there for a reason, however, and it's a reason many D&D players either seem to have forgotten or were never taught in the first place; there is always bigger fish than you. If the DM is letting the party be the biggest fish, then that's a DM that has failed the party. (Edit: Unless the goal of the game is decided to be simply playing the power fantasy to 11, in which case the concerns around the power of magic become irrelevant.)

I want the top tier to be substantially lower than that, for everyone. The other idea I want to break is the idea that "is magic === can do anything". I want magic to be part of the world. And since the world's isn't continually overthrown by people on a casual whim, magic that can do so doesn't match what I want.
I'd be interested to hear what you want magic to *be.* What role should it fill? What level of power should it be able to achieve at both a minimum and a maximum? What narrative incentive would there be to seek it out? Etc.

Psyren

2022-02-22, 07:13 PM

That's not the norm for spells though:

I'm aware; I never said it was "the norm for spells."

I'm totally ok with Resurrection not being class-bound. Revivify, sure. But I'm fine with a party of fighters learning how to call on divine (or infernal, or primal, or...) aid to raise a fallen comrade.

I would have both resurrection (the spell) and sufficiently heroic PCs being able to forge extraplanar connections. Not saying raising the dead should be a totally common occurrence or anything, but I'd prefer a method of doing it that is a lot more routine or repeatable for a church than getting angels to owe you favors.

I'd say no one should be summoning anything that can fight on par with themselves, or even close. Barbarians included. But I could see summoning a horde of ancestors to rush out and <do thing>.

I feel like a horde of ancestors {rushing out and doing thing} could just be a refluffed version of any number of spells or features that aren't actually summoning.

Why not? The shadows link everywhere.

Let me rephrase - I'd be okay with a rogue being able to, say, Shadow Walk. But that method of travel, while very fast, would still carry risks and not be instantaneous. The Plane of Shadow is not a nice place to visit regularly.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 07:20 PM

But this doesn't happen unless the DM explicitly allows it, and that isn't the assumption of the game by any means. A level 20 party is *nothing* compared to a deity, and drastically weaker than the likes of a demonic Prince or devilish Archduke.
For instance, the Forgotten Realms gets a lot of flak from people because of the number of ridiculously powerful NPCs that exist there. They exist there for a reason, however, and it's a reason many D&D players either seem to have forgotten or were never taught in the first place; there is always bigger fish than you. If the DM is letting the party be the biggest fish, then that's a DM that has failed the party. (Edit: Unless the goal of the game is decided to be simply playing the power fantasy to 11, in which case the concerns around the power of magic become irrelevant.)

I don't disagree. But to hear others talk upthread, that's the intent. That a level 20 party should casually dethrone gods and singlehandedly murder demon princes in their lairs without significant risk. And that's what I disagree with.

I'd be interested to hear what you want magic to *be.* What role should it fill? What level of power should it be able to achieve at both a minimum and a maximum? What narrative incentive would there be to seek it out? Etc.

Magic (via spells, particularly) is one avenue that people take to do what they want. It's as natural in a D&D world as fighting with a sword...and just as unnatural. Some fight with swords, others with blasts of fire. But they're not fundamentally different categories of things. What matters is the will and the choice of the individual. Magic is one of the paths you can take.

Personally, I'd prefer if all characters (spell-casters or not) start out as action heroes (each with a special trick, more durable than most, but not much more) and end as the sort for whom taking on a demon prince is possible, but only with significant preparation, gathering of allies, and yes, luck. Where, magic or not, most of the large-scale setting changes (and I fully support such things) come from the accumulation of smaller decisions made, victories won, and allies persuaded, not through pushing a button found on a character sheet. Because button-based victories, in the end, are hollow.

HPisBS

2022-02-22, 08:51 PM

I don't disagree. But to hear others talk upthread, that's the intent. That a level 20 party should casually dethrone gods and singlehandedly murder demon princes in their lairs without significant risk. And that's what I disagree with.

Who? When?

Maybe it's recency bias or something, but as far as I recall, the only ones saying anything to that effect were either being glib... or you.

Magic (via spells, particularly) is one avenue that people take to do what they want. It's as natural in a D&D world as fighting with a sword...and just as unnatural. Some fight with swords, others with blasts of fire. But they're not fundamentally different categories of things. What matters is the will and the choice of the individual. Magic is one of the paths you can take.

Personally, I'd prefer if all characters (spell-casters or not) start out as action heroes (each with a special trick, more durable than most, but not much more) and end as the sort for whom taking on a demon prince is possible, but only with significant preparation, gathering of allies, and yes, luck. Where, magic or not, most of the large-scale setting changes (and I fully support such things) come from the accumulation of smaller decisions made, victories won, and allies persuaded, not through pushing a button found on a character sheet. Because button-based victories, in the end, are hollow.

Ok. No arguments here. It's starting to sound to me like you could be arguing against a (nearly?) imaginary counter-view....

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 09:07 PM

Who? When?

Maybe it's recency bias or something, but as far as I recall, the only ones saying anything to that effect were either being glib... or you.

Ok. No arguments here. It's starting to sound to me like you could be arguing against a (nearly?) imaginary counter-view....

Cf this post a few pages back:

I disagree with you. A party of high level characters should be able to deal with pretty much all of those forces in that fortress without worrying about having a literal army behind them to support them. A few well placed Earthquake spells from a Wizard and Cleric should be able to bring down most of the defenses, while some AoE spells or summons deal with the majority of the enemies. The full casters should be able to wipe out armies and reshape reality, because that's their whole schtick in DnD. Heck by level 20 a Cleric can literally call up their Deity and say "Hey, can you do X for me", thus reshaping all of reality with a class ability alone. The only ones the party should be worried about are Orcus himself, and his direct underlings, like Pit Fiends or Balors.

And that's consistent with a bunch of other posters over time stating that Dr Strange is the normal expected level for full casters. And that the expected power level is "mythic heroes", who are mostly in the "tear apart mountains when they miss" scale. Several references to Goku (who casually obliterates planets during fights) have also been made as appropriate touchstones over my time here.

HPisBS

2022-02-22, 10:02 PM

And that's consistent with a bunch of other posters over time stating that Dr Strange is the normal expected level for full casters. And that the expected power level is "mythic heroes", who are mostly in the "tear apart mountains when they miss" scale. Several references to Goku (who casually obliterates planets during fights) have also been made as appropriate touchstones over my time here.

Able to deal with most of a fortress's forces without a literal army behind them to support them =/= "casually dethrone gods."

Only being worried about Orcus himself, and his direct underlings, like Pit Fiends or Balors =/= "singlehandedly murdering demon princes in their lairs without significant risk."

These things are not equivalent. In fact, the quoted statements seems rather in-line with what you're saying. sithlordnergal saying the rank-and-file underlings shouldn't be a high-level party's focus, while Orcus and his Balors are worrisome is not him saying such a fight should be a walk in the park.

And dealing with a fortress of (presumably) low-to-mid-level humanoids is an entirely different scale. I should hope that any group who can even begin to contemplate tangling with cosmic forces in any form (even with cosmic aid and/or allies) should be able to handle a simple castle and its defenders.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 10:07 PM

Able to deal with most of a fortress's forces without a literal army behind them to support them =/= "casually dethrone gods."

Only being worried about Orcus himself, and his direct underlings, like Pit Fiends or Balors =/= "singlehandedly murdering demon princes in their lairs without significant risk."

These things are not equivalent. In fact, the quoted statement seems rather in-line with what you're saying. sithlordnergal saying the rank-and-file underlings shouldn't be a high-level party's focus, while Orcus and his Balors are worrisome is not him saying such a fight should be a walk in the park.

That was in a chain of posts (and referring to a lot of prior posts) where yes, the expectation is that nothing below a balor should even cause concern. And you should routinely fight 2-3 balor-class enemies...as a regular random encounter. That's not the design of 5e at all. Bounded accuracy and all. Rank and file underlings should be a major issue in sufficient numbers, and those numbers don't have to be "entire army".

The descriptions of the levels of optimization they were talking about do, in fact, include casually overthrowing gods. They made the statement that it was a normal, expected part of things, and that the only reason Orcus hadn't been dethroned by the first high level party to walk his way was that there hadn't been any high level parties that decided to do it. That sounds real casual to me.

Specifically:

He can know all about level 20 mortals, hell he likely aided some of them in reaching level 20. It doesn't make him a chump if he is beaten by the first level 20 party that runs into him. It means that those level 20 parties that aren't allied with him are exceptionally rare, and just don't normally happen. If your world has a ton of level 20 adventurers running around, then yeah I can see why it wouldn't make sense. But if it doesn't, then it makes perfect sense why Orcus is there.

And it still doesn't change the fact that Orcus is likely still around because its advantageous for everyone involved for him to stay around. Yeah, Orcus is the abyssal prince of the undead, but it'd be bad if Orcus were replaced with, say, Delran, the up and coming Devil that's just waiting for Orcus to die so he can take over, break treaties, and plunge the world into a never ending undead horror show.

Mortals have never actually been that low on the power scale. Its why mortals could, quite literally, kill and replace Gods back in older versions of DnD and older DnD stories. Hell, Mystra the literal Goddess of Magic has technically been murdered what? Two or three times now? Usually by Mortals that got even stronger than she did? And what happened? you ended up with magic going on the fritz and the world nearly ending. By level 20 your mortal characters could probably do the same as the other mortals, but realized messing with the literal cosmic balance of everything results in the end of the world.

And this is not the first thread I've said such things in and been routinely shot down as wanting to nerf wizards into the ground. And told that no, the expectation is that T4 parties are regularly fighting multiple CR 21+ creatures per adventuring day. And demon princes are all in the low 20s by CR. So yes, that's taking down multiple demon prince-class enemies per adventuring day. Without substantial risk of death.

So forgive me if the idea that this is some strawman rings a bit hollow. It's a consistent theme over the years I've been on this forum.

HPisBS

2022-02-22, 10:19 PM

That was in a chain of posts (and referring to a lot of prior posts) where yes, the expectation is that nothing below a balor should even cause concern. And you should routinely fight 2-3 balor-class enemies...as a regular random encounter. That's not the design of 5e at all. Bounded accuracy and all. Rank and file underlings should be a major issue in sufficient numbers, and those numbers don't have to be "entire army".

The descriptions of the levels of optimization they were talking about do, in fact, include casually overthrowing gods. They made the statement that it was a normal, expected part of things, and that the only reason Orcus hadn't been dethroned by the first high level party to walk his way was that there hadn't been any high level parties that decided to do it. That sounds real casual to me.

One could also say "the only reason Batman has never put down the Justice League is because he's never wanted to." That still wouldn't be the same as saying "he could casually defeat the whole League." It wouldn't even be the same as saying he could casually defeat even one of the members!

Now, it was said that deicide has happened - by mortals - in settings' fiction, and that it was rare. It was even more-or-less said that such a thing could be appropriate for max level play. I'm pretty sure it was not said that such a thing could or should casually be done on the party's day off... except perhaps as words put in somebody's mouth.

Edit:
But regardless, that's all kinda beside the point. The point being what actually is the desired power ceiling for martials and casters. I'm fairly on-board with the idea of a max level party being able to take on anything with a stat block -- provided they have sufficient planning, equipment, allies, and so on. But at this juncture, I'm more concerned with raising the martials up to the point that they feel like larger-than-life characters out of myths and legends by that point. (Features like Giant's Might are a solid step in that direction.)

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-22, 10:39 PM

But regardless, that's all kinda beside the point. The point being what actually is the desired power ceiling for martials and casters. I'm fairly on-board with the idea of a max level party being able to take on anything with a stat block -- provided they have sufficient planning, equipment, allies, and so on. But at this juncture, I'm more concerned with raising the martials up to the point that they feel like larger-than-life characters out of myths and legends by that point. (Features like Giant's Might are a solid step in that direction.)

Depends on what we mean by myths and legends. Because most myths and legends are very much in the gonzo scale that makes coherent settings (no, myths are not an attempt at a coherent setting, especially not fed through hundreds of years of exaggeration) impossible. I'd rather not have things like slicing through mountains, obliterating armies, etc as expectations. A large number of common troops should pose a significant, even lethal challenge for a level 20 party. By design. Otherwise Bounded Accuracy has been obliterated.

It's one reason why I dislike comparisons to super heroes, mythical figures such as Thor, Cuhullin, anime (especially shonen or isekai anime) protagonists, novel characters, etc. as touchpoints. Because those were always the heroes of their own stories. Protagonists, to which others were minor figures. And who had whatever powers were convenient to the plot. And that's directly opposed to my belief that D&D is about the team working together. Even figures like Mordenkainen and Elminster are great novel protagonists. But lousy D&D characters.

rel

2022-02-22, 11:35 PM

Every darn thing is magical. There is nothing that does not partake in, benefit from, and rely on this raw magic. Spells and other coherent magical effects are not the only form it takes. In fact, they're the least common form. It's magic all the way down.

This is a very good way of describing a D&D world. From giants casually ignoring the square cube law, dragons flying and breathing fire, trees, skeletons and rocks just walking around doing their thing to the high level character reliably surviving a fall from the edge of space the world is plainly running on different rules to our own. It's a magical world through and through, made from the melding of four primal elemental forces, ruled over by gods and powered by energies that don't exist in our own universe.

Schwann145

2022-02-22, 11:51 PM

I should hope that any group who can even begin to contemplate tangling with cosmic forces in any form (even with cosmic aid and/or allies) should be able to handle a simple castle and its defenders.
*coughs in Tucker's Kobolds*

AntiAuthority

2022-02-23, 02:44 AM

Cf this post a few pages back:

And that's consistent with a bunch of other posters over time stating that Dr Strange is the normal expected level for full casters. And that the expected power level is "mythic heroes", who are mostly in the "tear apart mountains when they miss" scale. Several references to Goku (who casually obliterates planets during fights) have also been made as appropriate touchstones over my time here.

I'm one of the of the people who believe high level characters should resemble mythic heroes capable of destroying armies of lesser beings with ease and be serious threats to powerful demons and such, but I'm aware that's not everyone's cup of tea because what people find fun is subjective. Though one of the earlier D&D books (I believe it was 2E) did imply the characters were inspired by mythological heroes like Hercules and such, but to my knowledge the Fighter didn't quite become Hercules in terms of abilities... That said, I don't think I've been too vocal about my preferences in this particular thread.

That said, when referring to characters being like Goku, Dr. Strange, etc. it's not always a 1:1 copy of their abilities and the exact scale of said abilities, more using them as inspiration for what their characters can aspire to be. For example, some people want magic users to be able to destroy entire planes wtih a single spell while others like their current level of power (which is basically a superhero or mythological god in all honesty, even if only for a few times a day) and some want their level of power to be much lower, but still quite powerful (which is what you seem to be in favor of, but correct me if I'm wrong).

That said, I am getting the impression you and HPisBS are on the same general page, in that magic is omnipresent within the D&D settings and warriors can become greater in that setting than anyone in our world can simply by swinging a sword around. While I'm for a higher scale in the vein in lines with mythological heroes, superheroes and battle anime characters and have talked to people who feel the same way... I understand that not everyone enjoys those types of games either, as I recall hearing time and again others on other threads (and sites) commenting that they didn't like the thought of their characters (both warriors and casters) becoming so powerful that they were basically gods in and of themselves and wanted to stay within the realms of "powerful but still killable."

So far though, it seems people can (somewhat) agree that characters in D&D should be capable of things beyond what IRL humans can do, it seems the current topic is about how far in terms of abilities they should go after that point.

sithlordnergal

2022-02-23, 06:47 AM

Depends on what we mean by myths and legends. Because most myths and legends are very much in the gonzo scale that makes coherent settings (no, myths are not an attempt at a coherent setting, especially not fed through hundreds of years of exaggeration) impossible. I'd rather not have things like slicing through mountains, obliterating armies, etc as expectations. A large number of common troops should pose a significant, even lethal challenge for a level 20 party. By design. Otherwise Bounded Accuracy has been obliterated.

It's one reason why I dislike comparisons to super heroes, mythical figures such as Thor, Cuhullin, anime (especially shonen or isekai anime) protagonists, novel characters, etc. as touchpoints. Because those were always the heroes of their own stories. Protagonists, to which others were minor figures. And who had whatever powers were convenient to the plot. And that's directly opposed to my belief that D&D is about the team working together. Even figures like Mordenkainen and Elminster are great novel protagonists. But lousy D&D characters.

The issue is that Bounded Accuracy falls apart at those levels regardless of how optimized or unoptimized a party is. A large number of common troops just isn't going to be a threat to a high level party. Case in point, I went through a T4 adventure. The final fight involved about 30 zombies, a good handful of skeletons, and a bunch of other casters and knights. The Druid wiped out nearly every undead in the room with one cast of Sunburst because its a 60ft radius spell that deals 12d6 Radiant damage and Undead have disadvantage on the save. And without those zombies, the encounter was so trivial that we literally decided "Lets finish summoning the Primoridal Evil just to have a proper final encounter"

I get that characters like Mordenkainen and Elminster make for lousy D&D characters in your eyes. But those are the characters that DnD builds towards, and has always built towards.

Heck, lets ignore Wizards and spells for a moment. Consider that a level 20 Moon Druid can turn into an Earth Elemental an infinite number of times. Just how many normal Guards are needed to take down a single Earth Elemental? A normal Guard only has a 35% chance to hit an Earth Elemental, and only deal an average of 6 damage per hit. Assuming a non-magical spear, that's gonna be halved to 3 damage..to a creature with 126 HP. That's a minimum of 42 successful attacks just to knock a Moon Druid out of their Elemental form. And that Druid can go right back into it on their turn, no resources lost. And heck, that's if the Druid is deciding to even give those spearmen a chance. The Druid could be underground, safe from all attacks, or in the sky, out of Spear range as an Air elemental.

You'll need quite a lot of Guards just to deal with that one Druid alone...and that's not accounting for how many Guards will die in the process since they only have 11 HP and Druids have abilities to fight back.

Same holds true for a Barbarian. Heck, a Zealot Barbarian can effectively take on an infinite number of guards for a long while before Exhaustion finally takes them because they literally cannot die from losing HP while Raging, you can Range an infinite number of times, you can Rage again while Raging, and your Rage can't be ended early. I mean, does it make sense that a level 20 Zealot Barbarian can literally take on an infinite number of martial enemies, and the only thing that will stop them is when they eventually fail 6 Con saves. That Zealot Barbarian is doing something just as unbelievable as a Wizard wiping out an equal number of guards with a wave of their hand and a spell. Do you take issue with that though?

EDIT: And I still very much think that such myths can work in a coherent setting. What about having that much power prevents a coherent setting?

Florian

2022-02-23, 09:00 AM

So far though, it seems people can (somewhat) agree that characters in D&D should be capable of things beyond what IRL humans can do, it seems the current topic is about how far in terms of abilities they should go after that point.

There's a realted topic:

Ok, for me, setting and rules go hand in hand, the later tries to model the former.

Let's say my base range for human attributes is 1-6, while training allow to upgrade that range from 4-9.
Let's also assume the same range is true for skills, plus one skill-related feat for every uneven skill rank, the same for magic school skills, unlocking a new spell level at each even skill rank.
For funsies, let's say the mundane-magic-interaction-ration is 3:1, meaning a magical skill at rank9 kann push a related attribute or skill up to +3, for a total of 12. The other way is also true, mundane skills can support magical abbilities on the same ratio.

Based on what I have now, I can model:
- Peak Human without training.
- Peak Human without training but some magic support
- Peak Human with training.
- Peak Human with training and magic support.
(Plus weak and normal, obviously)

Now I want to add a Frost Giant to that and I want it to be more of a Jotun, like Ymir:
https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/009/722/312/large/radu-adrian-ciortea-sswc4low-rez.jpg?1520523065

So as it is roughly four times as big as a human, Iḿ using a range of 20-24 as a base to model it. Even without going into how I model training for that Jotun, I see a problem coming up......

..... without going back to the drawing board, this setup can't support a character arm-wrestling a giant and it can't really support a Human being as strong as one of the Jotun. The question also is, do I want to? Because that would have me rethink a lot about what the mundane range really means......

HPisBS

2022-02-24, 01:50 PM

There's a realted topic:

Ok, for me, setting and rules go hand in hand, the later tries to model the former.

Let's say my base range for human attributes is 1-6, while training allow to upgrade that range from 4-9.
Let's also assume the same range is true for skills, plus one skill-related feat for every uneven skill rank, the same for magic school skills, unlocking a new spell level at each even skill rank.
For funsies, let's say the mundane-magic-interaction-ration is 3:1, meaning a magical skill at rank9 kann push a related attribute or skill up to +3, for a total of 12. The other way is also true, mundane skills can support magical abbilities on the same ratio.

Based on what I have now, I can model:
- Peak Human without training.
- Peak Human without training but some magic support
- Peak Human with training.
- Peak Human with training and magic support.
(Plus weak and normal, obviously)

Now I want to add a Frost Giant to that and I want it to be more of a Jotun, like Ymir:
https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/009/722/312/large/radu-adrian-ciortea-sswc4low-rez.jpg?1520523065

So as it is roughly four times as big as a human, Iḿ using a range of 20-24 as a base to model it. Even without going into how I model training for that Jotun, I see a problem coming up......

..... without going back to the drawing board, this setup can't support a character arm-wrestling a giant and it can't really support a Human being as strong as one of the Jotun. The question also is, do I want to? Because that would have me rethink a lot about what the mundane range really means......

OK?

That's all perfectly arbitrary and perfectly disconnected from how D&D works lol

subtledoctor

2022-02-25, 05:56 PM

Consider that a level 20 Moon Druid can turn into an Earth Elemental an infinite number of times. Just how many normal Guards are needed to take down a single Earth Elemental? A normal Guard only has a 35% chance to hit an Earth Elemental, and only deal an average of 6 damage per hit. Assuming a non-magical spear, that's gonna be halved to 3 damage..to a creature with 126 HP. That's a minimum of 42 successful attacks just to knock a Moon Druid out of their Elemental form. And that Druid can go right back into it on their turn, no resources lost. And heck, that's if the Druid is deciding to even give those spearmen a chance. The Druid could be underground, safe from all attacks, or in the sky, out of Spear range as an Air elemental.

You'll need quite a lot of Guards just to deal with that one Druid alone...and that's not accounting for how many Guards will die in the process since they only have 11 HP and Druids have abilities to fight back.

Same holds true for a Barbarian. Heck, a Zealot Barbarian can effectively take on an infinite number of guards for a long while before Exhaustion finally takes them because they literally cannot die from losing HP while Raging, you can Range an infinite number of times, you can Rage again while Raging, and your Rage can't be ended early. I mean, does it make sense that a level 20 Zealot Barbarian can literally take on an infinite number of martial enemies, and the only thing that will stop them is when they eventually fail 6 Con saves. That Zealot Barbarian is doing something just as unbelievable as a Wizard wiping out an equal number of guards with a wave of their hand and a spell. Do you take issue with that though?

My first thought reading this was that these abilities (plus various wizardly abilities and spells, including Forcecage etc.) arte simply very badly designed. They made a system built around bounded accuracy, which is great at the beginning, but then they shoveled a bunch of crap into it that completely undoes the benefits of bounded accuracy. My takeaway is, to get it right, you need to build bounded accuracy into every part of the game - including spells, class abilities, epic-level play, etc. - not just to-hit rolls.

My second thought is, these kinds of characters are basically walking nuclear bombs in such setting. Alignment, heroic deeds, none of that matters because they are a threat to every normal person in the realm and the normal people cannot put together any kind of defense. Get that barbarian drunk or use some kind of effect to make him forget he's no a villain, and a kingdom gets decimated.

So basically, 5E has created a version of D&D that is 'The Boys' in a medieval setting...?

Tekrow

2022-02-25, 10:04 PM

Honestly, it feels like this is a problem that will never have a good solution because a lot of people want a lot of different things from DnD, and most of those things are incompatible. Some people want anime fighters, others hate the idea, some what mages that can thrown down with gods, others hate the idea, some want both, some want neither. There will always be people upset. If you nerf the casters, people that want to be Dr. Strange will get upset. If you buff the martials, people that want to be ordinary guy will get upset. And then we will have 30 threads a day complaining about those issues.

Sneak Dog

2022-02-26, 04:58 AM

My first thought reading this was that these abilities (plus various wizardly abilities and spells, including Forcecage etc.) arte simply very badly designed. They made a system built around bounded accuracy, which is great at the beginning, but then they shoveled a bunch of crap into it that completely undoes the benefits of bounded accuracy. My takeaway is, to get it right, you need to build bounded accuracy into every part of the game - including spells, class abilities, epic-level play, etc. - not just to-hit rolls.

My second thought is, these kinds of characters are basically walking nuclear bombs in such setting. Alignment, heroic deeds, none of that matters because they are a threat to every normal person in the realm and the normal people cannot put together any kind of defense. Get that barbarian drunk or use some kind of effect to make him forget he's no a villain, and a kingdom gets decimated.

So basically, 5E has created a version of D&D that is 'The Boys' in a medieval setting...?

Hm, I'd say it's working great for attack rolls. Your accuracy is bounded, your effect scales up. At level 20, we're talking about balors, solars and ancient dragons. The very avatars of deities are on the table as campaign bosses. Being able to just drop fire on an army to make it not exist, or carve through them seems appropriate. So yeah, treat that barbarian like you would an ancient dragon capable of destroying or taking over your entire empire. They're on that level.

Besides, bounded accuracy means that you can still inconvenience anything ever so slightly at any level.

Ulsan Krow

2022-02-26, 08:08 AM

Many people don't want 'supernatural' or even 'superhuman' looking martials at any level. Wanting a grounded fantasy from 1 all the way to 20, except not applying the same standard to wizards and other casters because 'magic' is not constrained by logic in the same way.

You can approach balancing this in a number of a ways, including but definitely not limited to:

1. Concede that gritty fantasy terminates somewhere from level 5 to 10, and beyond that a character martial or otherwise is either explicitly superhuman or supernatural, OR the character is simply not higher than that level. There is no such thing as super skilled Billy Bob Joe who is the same level as clerics who can summon giant storms.

2. Follow the current design philosophy which is that martials can compete at a quantitative level, since bigger numbers don't inherently confer what people find problematic in the qualitatively high flying and supernatural. A mundane swordsman can do 5 damage or do 300 damage in one turn and theres no obvious incongruency in the fantasy presented.

3. Give tons of magic items, either with a current solution of DM fiat in the form of discretionarily presented additional magic items in comparison to casters and even half casters like Paladin. Or as the OP here has presented, codify a ruleset for this instead. I like the attunement limit method rather than a defined number that is mandated per level; I think flexibility is a strength there.

4. Optional 'superhuman', wuxia-esque feats at higher levels that offer more utility rather than enhanced numbers of existing martial responsibilities of simply DPR and tanking. Quick googling finds some really nice homebrews that fit this philosophy, e.g. KibblesTasty's epic feats - https://i.redd.it/wlnfis7k7lv41.png Optional and level/stat restricted feats for martial classes that allow those fictionally flavorful and law breaking actions like shaking the earth with footsteps or moving faster than the eye can see.

Willie the Duck

2022-02-26, 08:45 AM

KorvinStarmast

2022-02-26, 09:52 AM

5. diverge the game at upper tiers into two lanes -- one with lower max power casters to play alongside non-preternatural martials, and another where superhuman martials play alongside storm-summoning clerics. Make the arcane casters more like the Warlock. the restricted level 6, 7, 8 and 9th level spells are a sound feature.

To defeat a Level 20 Moon Druid requires IMO an opposed high level caster with minions, but that's a topic for it's own thread. The key word "stun" crops up in a few monster and spell abilities. That's one path towards dealing with the transformation problem.

But a level 20 Druid ought to be awesome. They are harnessing the very powers of nature.

subtledoctor

2022-02-28, 02:15 PM

Many people don't want 'supernatural' or even 'superhuman' looking martials at any level. Wanting a grounded fantasy from 1 all the way to 20, except not applying the same standard to wizards and other casters because 'magic' is not constrained by logic in the same way.

You can approach balancing this in a number of a ways, including but definitely not limited to:

1. Concede that gritty fantasy terminates somewhere from level 5 to 10

2. Follow the current design philosophy which is that martials can compete at a quantitative level

3. Give tons of magic items

4. Optional 'superhuman', wuxia-esque feats at higher levels

5. diverge the game at upper tiers into two lanes -- one with lower max power casters to play alongside non-preternatural martials, and another where superhuman martials play alongside storm-summoning clerics.

I guess the problem here might be with the premise of the original/perennial question, which asks something like "how should this conundrum be 'fixed?'" when the obvious answer to me is that there are many possible ways to do so. The big issue is, the ruleset should be flexible enough to support any/all of them without this or that player feeling cheated. They could be optional official rules, there could be homebrew add-on rules, whatever. What seems obvious to me is that the particular approach in any given game should be determined by the campaign setting - not by "this is the way it is done in D&D."

Also, neither here nor there but:

Concede that gritty fantasy terminates somewhere from level 5 to 10, and beyond that ... the character is simply not higher than that level. There is no such thing as super skilled Billy Bob Joe who is the same level as clerics who can summon giant storms.

This could actually be a really interesting approach. Like, what if you combined an idea like old-school level limits with newer 3E/5E multiclassing? Say, no fighter is more powerful than a 12th-level fighter because 12th level is the max level for anyone, in any class. BUT you can pick up levels in other classes, without limit. So you could be a 12/12 fighter/mage, or a 12/12 sorcerer/warlock, etc., but not a level 24 anything. Then all the best gladiators and generals in the world wouldn't just be level 20 fighters, but level 12 fighters who each mix their fighting skills with some other abilities, according to their own predilections and tactical sense. That could be an interesting world! (And it would permit high-level play while toning down the 'quadratic power expansion' problem.)

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-28, 02:27 PM

I guess the problem here might be with the premise of the original/perennial question, which asks something like "how should this conundrum be 'fixed?'" when the obvious answer to me is that there are many possible ways to do so. The big issue is, the ruleset should be flexible enough to support any/all of them without this or that player feeling cheated. They could be optional official rules, there could be homebrew add-on rules, whatever. What seems obvious to me is that the particular approach in any given game should be determined by the campaign setting - not by "this is the way it is done in D&D."

That doesn't work. You can't have full flexibility over an entire unbounded range simply by adding more content--the core mechanics don't accommodate it. Games have fixed ranges where their core mechanical conceit actually works. Games have to pick and choose what they'll support. And in doing so, and being intentional and explicit about it, everyone will be happier. Because trying to do everything involves failing at everything or at least doing everything poorly; you can't do it all.

Yes, this includes "generic" games like GURPS. Which don't actually do everything--they have very fixed constants (including gritty, easy death). And D&D is not (nor does it promise that it is) a generic system. It's fine to say "here's what we're covering; for other things, look elsewhere." And, IMO, better for that.

HPisBS

2022-02-28, 02:28 PM

But a level 20 Druid ought to be awesome. They are harnessing the very powers of nature.

Indeed. Much like a lvl 20 Ranger, Bard, Monk, Rogue, etc ought to be awesome. As always, I'm in favor of buffing the underwhelming stuff to the point where it can whelm with the best of them.

This could actually be a really interesting approach. Like, what if you combined an idea like old-school level limits with newer 3E/5E multiclassing? Say, no fighter is more powerful than a 12th-level fighter because 12th level is the max level for anyone, in any class. BUT you can pick up levels in other classes, without limit. So you could be a 12/12 fighter/mage, or a 12/12 sorcerer/warlock, etc., but not a level 24 anything. Then all the best gladiators and generals in the world wouldn't just be level 20 fighters, but level 12 fighters who each mix their fighting skills with some other abilities, according to their own predilections and tactical sense. That could be an interesting world! (And it would permit high-level play while toning down the 'quadratic power expansion' problem.)

- A world called "Yggdrasil" (from Overlord).

Angelalex242

2022-02-28, 02:34 PM

I think it comes down to design. Fighters, Rangers, Monks, Rogues...all of those classes are designed to take on mortal creatures.

Paladins come out of this much better because...when you play this shining Knight of Light, what do you expect him to do? Go mano a mano with Pit Fiends and Balors.

And he's equipped to do exactly that. Turns out being designed to go toe to toe with fiends and powerful undead puts you in a better place than dealing with merely mortal concerns.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-28, 02:39 PM

I think it comes down to design. Fighters, Rangers, Monks, Rogues...all of those classes are designed to take on mortal creatures.

Where are you getting this? And it's not actually true--all of those are more than capable of handling all sorts of foes, at least by the base system's expectations. What they're not, is capable of hanging with other classes under assumptions and play styles that radically depart from that baseline (such as "all fights are against big solos of much higher CR than party level and there's only one fight per day" or "everyone is hyper-optimized and all dials are set to make spell-casters as powerful as possible and with as few restrictions as possible").

Angelalex242

2022-02-28, 02:43 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-28, 02:48 PM

Optimization is player choice. If it's an optimizing table, than the DM must account for that.

Particularly if it's an optimizing table with low egos and high teamwork. Most monsters just die in such a case.

Optimization should be table choice. Including the DM.

Don't blame the system if you use it well outside its intended bounds. No more than blaming a little hand jack when it fails to lift a tank. Not all possible choices are supported, nor should they be (because the set of possibilities is only bounded by the different readings, which are legion, especially when including all the extremely-permissive readings out there). If you're using the system outside its design specs (which all the things I mentioned are, very firmly), any breakage and the responsibility for fixing is entirely up to you. You're already firmly in DM fiat territory, so any fixes will be there as well.

And you didn't answer the question as to where you got that the martial classes were designed for mortal foes (and presumably mortal foes only).

Schwann145

2022-02-28, 06:16 PM

Psyren

2022-02-28, 06:31 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-28, 06:31 PM

We should define what "mundane/mortal/etc" means in the context of this conversation, I think.

Conveniently, Elden Ring just released and it got me thinking: This is the sort of thing I imagine when considering "non-magical/mundane" high level characters. The martial version(s) of the player-character in "Souls" games isn't as strong as Hercules. They aren't as quick as a speedster. They aren't as agile as Spider-Man.
But they're well trained and have an assortment of "magic" gear and weapons that allows them to take on particularly legendary foes.

I also think it's worth considering what magic looks like, as a character option, if we just remove/retool the "problematic" spells.
Magic is already at it's absolute weakest point in 5e compared to every other iteration of D&D (save maybe 4th edition, where everything was of basically equal power). If you think Fireball should be the pinnacle of what a caster is capable of (a spell that is, by the designers, admittedly overtuned for the level like almost no other) then you're essentially saying that there should definitely be a martial/caster disparity, but it should be swapped and martials should be on top.
Save-or-Die has been almost entirely removed from the game.
Save-or-Suck has been nerfed into the ground, typically with very short durations, save opportunities every round, or both.
Concentration rules totally abolish any abuse from spell-stacking.
The vast majority (all?) damage spells allow a chance to take half/no damage (either through missing on an atk roll, or from successfully saving).

Gygax thought that magic should be weak because who wants to play the magic-user when you could be the epic warrior-hero? He had to be dragged into letting magic users not suck.
I think some people just agree with his initial mentality and want to see magic be weak, inherently.

I don't want magic to be weak, but I also don't want it to be overpowering, either. Magic should be on par with other means of solving problems. More versatile than some, but generally weaker in power or more limited in other ways[1]. This isn't a game of protagonists with a supporting cast--it's a game about teamwork between equals. And if the answer is always "throw spells at it", then anyone without spells isn't an equal, they're part of the supporting cast.

Honestly, barring some of the problematic spells, a straight game without multiclassing is close enough for my purposes.

[1] I believe that if you have a spell or set of spells that replicates someone else's niche, you should have to either spend all your resources doing that if you want to be equal to a non-magic person in that niche, or accept that you'll not measure up. Doesn't mean casters can't have their own niches, but they shouldn't be able to do someone else's niche and a bunch beside. As I've said before, someone who wants to mix it up in melee (or with weapons) as a full caster should be no better at that than an EK is at casting spells. No, you shouldn't be able to get another class's full power out of a single-level dip and a couple spell choices. Or especially a subclass and a few (changeable) spell choices.

Schwann145

2022-02-28, 07:01 PM

I believe that if you have a spell or set of spells that replicates someone else's niche, you should have to either spend all your resources doing that if you want to be equal to a non-magic person in that niche, or accept that you'll not measure up. Doesn't mean casters can't have their own niches, but they shouldn't be able to do someone else's niche and a bunch beside.
I feel like I'm quoting you a lot. It's not personal, it's just convenient, lol

What niche could a wizard have that isn't covered via mundane means? All that comes to mind for me is "minion cleanup crew" and that's a rather bland niche.

AdAstra

2022-02-28, 07:09 PM

I feel like I'm quoting you a lot. It's not personal, it's just convenient, lol

What niche could a wizard have that isn't covered via mundane means? All that comes to mind for me is "minion cleanup crew" and that's a rather bland niche.

Lots of spells that do things that aren't easily replicated by mundane means. Like most of the illusions, charms, healing (though that's not usually for wizards), buff spells, summons (arguably replicating pet classes, I guess, but they operate on pretty different mechanics and are pretty magical to begin with in 5e), AOE spells, and save-or-suck abilities, which remain solid as ever in this edition.

You could maybe argue that many illusions and charms could be done mundanely through normal deception and manipulation, but in a DnD context it would almost be the other way around, using mundane means to replicate the magic that's usually had more explicit rules for it. AOE effects, buffs, debuffs (including save-or-suck), and summons, on the other hand, are almost entirely magical in nature.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-28, 07:19 PM

I feel like I'm quoting you a lot. It's not personal, it's just convenient, lol

What niche could a wizard have that isn't covered via mundane means? All that comes to mind for me is "minion cleanup crew" and that's a rather bland niche.

I'm fine with things like
* fast travel on a large scale
* fast mind control and minion-mancy (as much as I dislike these ones)
* creating shielding effects for a party
* most area crowd control
* combat healing and (most) condition removal from others

being mostly a caster thing, where anyone else who wants to do those has to accept not being as good as the specialists.

That's as big a niche as anything else. And when I say "not as good", I'm thinking of a tradeoff between power and versatility. If you can do a lot of different things, you shouldn't be as good at any one of them as someone who only does a few of those things. The area under the curve should be conserved (to a reasonable approximation).

Then again, I don't think anyone should be self-sufficient in any niche. If an average challenge takes an (abstract) rating of 4 (one unit representing the contribution of a single person who neither specializes nor anti-specializes in that area) to pass, no one should have a rating of 4 in anything that comes up frequently. And most people shouldn't have a rating of 0, either. People should generally be 1-2, with occasional 3s.

sithlordnergal

2022-02-28, 09:44 PM

Optimization should be table choice. Including the DM.

Don't blame the system if you use it well outside its intended bounds. No more than blaming a little hand jack when it fails to lift a tank. Not all possible choices are supported, nor should they be (because the set of possibilities is only bounded by the different readings, which are legion, especially when including all the extremely-permissive readings out there). If you're using the system outside its design specs (which all the things I mentioned are, very firmly), any breakage and the responsibility for fixing is entirely up to you. You're already firmly in DM fiat territory, so any fixes will be there as well.

I would disagree. While the DM can put limits on optimization by banning certain combinations, its ultimately up to the player to decide how much they optimize a build within those bounds. And unless the DM bans everything, you will always find a way to optimize the available rules. Heck, I generally just optimize things without thinking because optimized characters are far more fun to play than unoptimized ones. Its why I will always start with a 16 in my primary stat. That's clearly an optimized choice, and its just a lot more fun.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-02-28, 09:59 PM

I would disagree. While the DM can put limits on optimization by banning certain combinations, its ultimately up to the player to decide how much they optimize a build within those bounds. And unless the DM bans everything, you will always find a way to optimize the available rules. Heck, I generally just optimize things without thinking because optimized characters are far more fun to play than unoptimized ones. Its why I will always start with a 16 in my primary stat. That's clearly an optimized choice, and its just a lot more fun.

The table sets a range of acceptable optimization. Going outside that in either direction is table-hostile behavior in my book. That means bringing your mega-OP build/character to a low-op table is bad, as is bringing your anti-optimized "RP" character (scare quotes intentional) to a high-op table.

That's the important part. Optimize to the table.

rel

2022-03-01, 12:11 AM

I think some people just agree with his initial mentality and want to see magic be weak, inherently.

When discussing the relative strength and weakness of magic in D&D, you must remember that D&D magic is currently vastly more powerful than the magic in pretty much any fantasy setting not based on D&D.

Conversely, the list of fantasy settings where non-magical characters are notably more powerful than the non-magical characters in D&D is considerable.

Schwann145

2022-03-01, 01:41 AM

When discussing the relative strength and weakness of magic in D&D, you must remember that D&D magic is currently vastly more powerful than the magic in pretty much any fantasy setting not based on D&D.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not familiar with vast amounts of non-D&D settings, at least not enough to make such a claim. I can think of a few where casting is a more laborious process, but I can't think of any where the strength of the magic is outright inferior to 5e D&D magic. Jack Vance novels have stronger magic. The magic of Harry Potter is much easier to cast and of a comparable strength. The magic of The Magicians is very similar to D&D magic. I haven't read any Dresden Files but from what I've heard, it's on a comparable strength. World of Darkness Mage is vastly more powerful than D&D magic.
I'm starting to rethink my answer the more I type. :P

Conversely, the list of fantasy settings where non-magical characters are notably more powerful than the non-magical characters in D&D is considerable.
I'm not too familiar with many non-magic characters in D&D. The few that immediately spring to mind are all very powerful and easily hold a candle to non-D&D characters:
Any of Salvatore's warriors (Drizzt, Wulfgar, Bruenor, etc)
And... um... I'd need to research a little because every other "fighter" I can think of is either comic relief (Minsc) or magical.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-01, 10:54 AM

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not familiar with vast amounts of non-D&D settings, at least not enough to make such a claim. I can think of a few where casting is a more laborious process, but I can't think of any where the strength of the magic is outright inferior to 5e D&D magic. Jack Vance novels have stronger magic. The magic of Harry Potter is much easier to cast and of a comparable strength. The magic of The Magicians is very similar to D&D magic. I haven't read any Dresden Files but from what I've heard, it's on a comparable strength. World of Darkness Mage is vastly more powerful than D&D magic.
I'm starting to rethink my answer the more I type. :P

Harry Potter is not nearly comparable. It's more ubiquitous, but in general much weaker. With the exception of teleportation, it runs at about the 1-4th level spells.

Dresden Files is only more powerful if you're talking the top-level mages and supernatural beings. Most are way weaker. They don't come up as much, but they make up the vast majority of the magical populace. Vance's novels generally have weaker magic, except for a few special people.

And that goes for most fiction I'm aware of--there are powerful people, but generally rarely. And wizards and such, at least in classic fiction, aren't usually the protagonists. They're antagonists (who are slaughtered by the relatively mundane protagonists) or enigmatic helpers.

And as far as D&D fiction--no. Not even close. Wulfgar, Drizzt, etc. only get focus because of plot armor. And the wizards (etc) holding the idiot ball. It's the same trick used in superhero settings to let Black Widow hang with the rest of the Avengers--the magic of the plot.

Edit: and those books generally aren't nearly at the high end of D&D optimization. They fit with the "default" level of optimization (ie picking mostly blasting and thematic spells, without really working toward heavy multiclassing or other shenanigans) and those casters tend to have extreme weaknesses. Dresden wizards and technology don't get along. And most wizards are fairly single-emphasis, with heavy amounts of prep for their bigger things. And they can only do their big things a few times. They're also quite vulnerable to getting shot. Harry Potter needs their wands, and has very few combat-capable spells. Vancian magic can only hold 1-3 (with really strong people holding 5) spells, and then it takes a bunch of time to re-memorize them. And most people struggle to hold one low power one. Even high-magic settings like Brust's Draegera novels (where teleportation and raising the dead are commonplace), casters generally don't do much on the battlefield, because they're countered by others. And are exquisitely vulnerable to a knife in the back. Most of the heavy casters there spend most of their time fighting with weapons (artifact grade for the protagonists, but still swinging weapons).

MadBear

2022-03-01, 01:37 PM

Harry Potter is not nearly comparable. It's more ubiquitous, but in general much weaker. With the exception of teleportation, it runs at about the 1-4th level spells.

Dresden Files is only more powerful if you're talking the top-level mages and supernatural beings. Most are way weaker. They don't come up as much, but they make up the vast majority of the magical populace. Vance's novels generally have weaker magic, except for a few special people.

And that goes for most fiction I'm aware of--there are powerful people, but generally rarely. And wizards and such, at least in classic fiction, aren't usually the protagonists. They're antagonists (who are slaughtered by the relatively mundane protagonists) or enigmatic helpers.

And as far as D&D fiction--no. Not even close. Wulfgar, Drizzt, etc. only get focus because of plot armor. And the wizards (etc) holding the idiot ball. It's the same trick used in superhero settings to let Black Widow hang with the rest of the Avengers--the magic of the plot.

Edit: and those books generally aren't nearly at the high end of D&D optimization. They fit with the "default" level of optimization (ie picking mostly blasting and thematic spells, without really working toward heavy multiclassing or other shenanigans) and those casters tend to have extreme weaknesses. Dresden wizards and technology don't get along. And most wizards are fairly single-emphasis, with heavy amounts of prep for their bigger things. And they can only do their big things a few times. They're also quite vulnerable to getting shot. Harry Potter needs their wands, and has very few combat-capable spells. Vancian magic can only hold 1-3 (with really strong people holding 5) spells, and then it takes a bunch of time to re-memorize them. And most people struggle to hold one low power one. Even high-magic settings like Brust's Draegera novels (where teleportation and raising the dead are commonplace), casters generally don't do much on the battlefield, because they're countered by others. And are exquisitely vulnerable to a knife in the back. Most of the heavy casters there spend most of their time fighting with weapons (artifact grade for the protagonists, but still swinging weapons).

This makes me think that a potential solution might be in reducing the number of spells that get to be cast per day (with the exception of cantrips) such that most casters look closer to a warlock in terms of how often they cast. The obvious balancing act would require giving wizards/casters other things they can do to make up for not casting 10+ spells per day of higher level.

Like maybe by 17th level you get

3 1-3rd level spells (as in you can cast 3 spells that are between these levels)
2 spell of levels 4-6
and 1 spell that can be cast that is either a 7th/8th/9th level spell per day.

So now a wizard is throwing at most 6 spells out per day that aren't cantrips.

but all of this then becomes about weakening wizards, which is a prong I'm hesitant to touch as that's not often a solution people seem to like on average.

Basically what I've heard thus far entails:
1. Just accept that past level 10+ your maritals need to be superheroes
2. Just accept that you'll need to nerf casters
3. You'll need to set expectations for you game about what classes are allowed to be played

What I haven't heard a lot of, is actual discussion of the original idea of how to help power up martials using magic items in such a way that it doesn't benefit casters, but is purely a martial benefit.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-01, 01:59 PM

Basically what I've heard thus far entails:
1. Just accept that past level 10+ your maritals need to be superheroes
2. Just accept that you'll need to nerf casters
3. You'll need to set expectations for you game about what classes are allowed to be played

What I haven't heard a lot of, is actual discussion of the original idea of how to help power up martials using magic items in such a way that it doesn't benefit casters, but is purely a martial benefit.

I think that all of those are necessary no matter what you do. Making martials dependent on magic items breaks lots of other game expectations and is fragile (mainly because of multiclassing). And requires the DM to actively manage what they get to make sure they have the right capabilities at each point. And requires a super-high-magic-item-prevalence[1] setting (with all that entails). All of which are things I don't like, personally.

The disagreement at this point is mainly about how far #1 and #2 need to go. Do high level martials need to be demigods (to match similar casters) on the order of Superman, high-end Thor and the Hulk, etc, regularly throwing down with god-like entities? Or can we scale the whole thing back to where they're more like most of the X-men (ie powerful, but not throwing worlds at each other and still challenged by "normal" things, just at bigger scales than before)?

Personally, I'm in favor of the second option. Instead of setting the expected baseline somewhere around the current high-optimization casters, bring both of them toward the middle. Give casters some weaknesses and areas they're just not good at, while giving martials more cool things. But bake all of that into the classes.

[1] magic item prevalence and caster power are actually orthogonal axes of variation. You can have a world where "magic items" are common, but people who can cast spells are rare-to-non-existent (the real world is the end-point there--we have practically-magical devices, including what we're typing on, but no individual spell-casters). Or worlds where everyone's a caster but few, if any, magic items can be produced. The Wheel of Time is (especially for the first few books) in that latter category--angreal can't be made for most of the plot, but people are throwing around huge spells pretty frequently. Or any other combination, including all the points in-between).

MadBear

2022-03-01, 04:09 PM

I think that all of those are necessary no matter what you do. Making martials dependent on magic items breaks lots of other game expectations and is fragile (mainly because of multiclassing). And requires the DM to actively manage what they get to make sure they have the right capabilities at each point. And requires a super-high-magic-item-prevalence[1] setting (with all that entails). All of which are things I don't like, personally.

The disagreement at this point is mainly about how far #1 and #2 need to go. Do high level martials need to be demigods (to match similar casters) on the order of Superman, high-end Thor and the Hulk, etc, regularly throwing down with god-like entities? Or can we scale the whole thing back to where they're more like most of the X-men (ie powerful, but not throwing worlds at each other and still challenged by "normal" things, just at bigger scales than before)?

Personally, I'm in favor of the second option. Instead of setting the expected baseline somewhere around the current high-optimization casters, bring both of them toward the middle. Give casters some weaknesses and areas they're just not good at, while giving martials more cool things. But bake all of that into the classes.

[1] magic item prevalence and caster power are actually orthogonal axes of variation. You can have a world where "magic items" are common, but people who can cast spells are rare-to-non-existent (the real world is the end-point there--we have practically-magical devices, including what we're typing on, but no individual spell-casters). Or worlds where everyone's a caster but few, if any, magic items can be produced. The Wheel of Time is (especially for the first few books) in that latter category--angreal can't be made for most of the plot, but people are throwing around huge spells pretty frequently. Or any other combination, including all the points in-between).

See, I disagree with your premise that all of those are necessary. Batman and Ironman are both human (genius but human) and they regularly compete with higher level counterparts. The difference between a batman and a Hulk is that while both start as human, Hulk becomes superhuman, while batman gets there via what he creates.

Now obviously this isn't a direct parallel with D&D. But having martials have the ability to wield more magic items is a way to have them compete on equal footing without nerfing wizards directly or making them have superhuman abilities.

You do bring some valid criticism that I have been thinking about though. Namely, that 1. it can seem to require a high magic item setting (it doesn't necessarily) and 2. that it is DM dependent.

Now my response to those would be:

1. This can be a part of what adventuring is actually about. I'm not a fan of the settings where magic is so common that you go to the magic shop and every item from the DM guide is available. Instead, this would become part of the game, where adventurers are dungeon delving because it's the only way to get powerful and useful magic items. It instead helps the players become more goal oriented. So now, Bob the fighter wants to break into the arch liche's lair, because that's where he'll find items of power that only he has the strength to wield, meanwhile the wizard also wants to do the same because it's the only place they'll find scrolls that will actively give them higher level spells. I'm not saying this is the only way it can be done, but to show that you don't need to have a super-high-magic-item-prevalence to achieve that goal.

2. This is a bit stickier, but could be managed with having clear guidelines of how many and what types of items players should roughly have at any given level. It's something that's already a problem, because there isn't a clear answer, and because most items add to raw power, but aren't taken into account during the DM's encounter design, it creates issues. Instead, you can have the DM guide literally say something like:

levels 1-5; Mostly mundane items should be found with the exceptions being one use potions/items

levels 6-10: 1-2 items per player that should add a small combat benefit or a new utility outside of combat

levels 11-15: 0-1 items for wizards and 3-5 items for the fighter. 2 items should help combat utility and the others should assist in the other 2 pillars of play

16+: 1-2 items for wizard, and 4-6 items for marital. 3 should help combat utility, 1 should add directly to power, and 3 should help with the other pillars of play.

Obviously this would require a revamp of how magic is handed out, but that's already a complaint and problem with how the game is played. Also, those are rough examples that would need playtesting and work to make feel right.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-01, 04:18 PM

See, I disagree with your premise that all of those are necessary. Batman and Ironman are both human (genius but human) and they regularly compete with higher level counterparts. The difference between a batman and a Hulk is that while both start as human, Hulk becomes superhuman, while batman gets there via what he creates.

Only because there is authorial fiat. And Batman isn't exactly human if you actually look at what he does. He's so far away from the curve just in durability alone that he's superhuman. Not to mention being prepared for everything, including things there's no way to be prepared for. Despite having no official superpowers

Now obviously this isn't a direct parallel with D&D. But having martials have the ability to wield more magic items is a way to have them compete on equal footing without nerfing wizards directly or making them have superhuman abilities.

Someone who does what a wizard does with tools is a wizard in a different dress. If the only way to get power is to have items that replicate spells or spells that replicate spells, you're still just casting spells. And you run into action economy limits really really fast.

You do bring some valid criticism that I have been thinking about though. Namely, that 1. it can seem to require a high magic item setting (it doesn't necessarily) and 2. that it is DM dependent.

Now my response to those would be:

1. This can be a part of what adventuring is actually about. I'm not a fan of the settings where magic is so common that you go to the magic shop and every item from the DM guide is available. Instead, this would become part of the game, where adventurers are dungeon delving because it's the only way to get powerful and useful magic items. It instead helps the players become more goal oriented. So now, Bob the fighter wants to break into the arch liche's lair, because that's where he'll find items of power that only he has the strength to wield, meanwhile the wizard also wants to do the same because it's the only place they'll find scrolls that will actively give them higher level spells. I'm not saying this is the only way it can be done, but to show that you don't need to have a super-high-magic-item-prevalence to achieve that goal.

The number of magic items you need to replicate even a low-level wizard's loadout is insane. Like Christmas tree, except worse. And not any item will do, you need specific, useful items. So yes, you do need to have magic items coming out of the woodwork. Which causes all sorts of issues with worldbuilding (unless that's the aesthetic you're going for).

2. This is a bit stickier, but could be managed with having clear guidelines of how many and what types of items players should roughly have at any given level. It's something that's already a problem, because there isn't a clear answer, and because most items add to raw power, but aren't taken into account during the DM's encounter design, it creates issues. Instead, you can have the DM guide literally say something like:

levels 1-5; Mostly mundane items should be found with the exceptions being one use potions/items

levels 6-10: 1-2 items per player that should add a small combat benefit or a new utility outside of combat

levels 11-15: 0-1 items for wizards and 3-5 items for the fighter. 2 items should help combat utility and the others should assist in the other 2 pillars of play

16+: 1-2 items for wizard, and 4-6 items for marital. 3 should help combat utility, 1 should add directly to power, and 3 should help with the other pillars of play.

Obviously this would require a revamp of how magic is handed out, but that's already a complaint and problem with how the game is played. Also, those are rough examples that would need playtesting and work to make feel right.

Even 4-6 items for a martial wouldn't even give them a fraction of what a high-op wizard can do. Unless they're very specific, very open-ended items. You're looking at dozens. And they still wouldn't have a tenth of the versatility a high op wizard does. And if they did, its' because they have items that let them cast those same spells.

The spells are the problem here. And the fact that "there's a spell for that." And that picking spells carries only very minor costs (not being able to pick a different one).

sithlordnergal

2022-03-01, 04:21 PM

Amnestic

2022-03-01, 04:23 PM

Tell me, how many ordinary troops are needed to just kill ONE level 20 Barbarian?

A single very persistent one with a longbow, a horse, and a lot of arrows.

sithlordnergal

2022-03-01, 04:30 PM

A single very persistent one with a longbow, a horse, and a lot of arrows.

I dunno about that...If the Barbarian is in Longbow range then so are you. And if you're darting in and out of Range, a single Readied Action can fix that. Yeah, Barbarian only gets one shot, but it'll take a lot fewer shots to kill an NPC then it will to kill the Barbarian. And if you're unlucky enough to fight a Zealot, it no longer matters how many shots you have. They simply won't die without a spell to stop them.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-01, 04:34 PM

Don't get me wrong, spells tend to be stronger than all of that. But like it or not, by the time you reach those high levels you're not at the same level of the X-Men. You're at the Hulk's level, or Superman's level. And that's simply baked into 5e's system itself. I'm not pulling out insane spells or broken Multiclass builds. Just your average, no-feat, no-multiclass martials at level 20 go well beyond your proposed power range.

Wait. No. Unless you're highly under-selling the hulk or superman. The Hulk routinely took on tank shots from dozens of tanks without visible damage. And tanked hits that were explicitly said to be able to destroy anything. And lived. And throws buildings around. Superman is explicitly invulnerable to anything but kryptonite. And flies. And can turn back time. And shoots laser beams and sees through walls.

So no. Not even close.

Psyren

2022-03-01, 04:40 PM

A single very persistent one with a longbow, a horse, and a lot of arrows.

A level 20 Barbarian can't ride a horse?

Amnestic

2022-03-01, 04:48 PM

A level 20 Barbarian can't ride a horse?

It was mostly tongue in cheek, but the lack of versatility beyond "can take a lot of damage" is generally seen as (a/the) problem.

For the Hulk comparison, if we're set on it, the Hulk can jump pretty far and pretty high, scaling tall buildings in a single leap. The barbarian can jump pretty high too, mind you (10ft is slightly higher than the world record) just not to the same degree. Being able to jump and grapple a dragon from the sky to the ground is a 'high level barbarian' narrative that fits but isn't really represented anywhere.

Not even with the Jump spell.

Psyren

2022-03-01, 04:59 PM

It was mostly tongue in cheek, but the lack of versatility beyond "can take a lot of damage" is generally seen as (a/the) problem.

For the Hulk comparison, if we're set on it, the Hulk can jump pretty far and pretty high, scaling tall buildings in a single leap. The barbarian can jump pretty high too, mind you (10ft is slightly higher than the world record) just not to the same degree. Being able to jump and grapple a dragon from the sky to the ground is a 'high level barbarian' narrative that fits but isn't really represented anywhere.

Not even with the Jump spell.

I'd be fine with more high-level martials getting superjump abilities like the Psi Warrior and Ascendant Dragon Monk get.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-01, 05:07 PM

I'd be fine with more high-level martials getting superjump abilities like the Psi Warrior and Ascendant Dragon Monk get.

Same here.

sithlordnergal

2022-03-01, 05:11 PM

Wait. No. Unless you're highly under-selling the hulk or superman. The Hulk routinely took on tank shots from dozens of tanks without visible damage. And tanked hits that were explicitly said to be able to destroy anything. And lived. And throws buildings around. Superman is explicitly invulnerable to anything but kryptonite. And flies. And can turn back time. And shoots laser beams and sees through walls.

So no. Not even close.

Ehh, I'll give you that no-one is on par with Superman, but with the caveat that not even Casters are on par with Superman. Not even a 20th level Caster can do everything Superman does.

That said, I disagree about the Hulk. Don't get me wrong, I know how powerful Hulk is. But he is certainly not invulnerable, and those "destroy everything" attacks you mention typically force him out of Hulk form and leave him weakened afterwards. Consider Tiamat and a Bear Totem Barbarian: If Tiamat goes all out, using her Legendary Actions to make a breath attack as many times as she can in a round, and focusing solely on the Barbarian, that Bear Totem can actually survive 3 rounds with no healing required before they start having to use their ability that lets them stay at 1 HP. And that's assuming Tiamat always hits, and the Barbarian always fails their saving throw. That's on par with The Hulk managing to stand toe-to-toe with some of the strongest beings out there, only to be hit so hard that his Hulk form fails in the end.

Now Tiamat does have a few options, namely Disintegrate and Power Word Kill, but then again, Thanos managed to beat Hulk with a few stones soooo...

Schwann145

2022-03-01, 05:53 PM

But like it or not, by the time you reach those high levels you're not at the same level of the X-Men. You're at the Hulk's level, or Superman's level. And that's simply baked into 5e's system itself. I'm not pulling out insane spells or broken Multiclass builds. Just your average, no-feat, no-multiclass martials at level 20 go well beyond your proposed power range.

Utter nonsense, lol.
The Hulk is so powerful that his strength alone is a direct threat to the planet itself. He's so much of a threat that Earth's mightiest and smartest heroes all came together to put into place a plan to remove the Hulk from Earth... for safety. And when he got back? he was even stronger.
A 24 Str barb is puny in the extreme compared to that. Hell, the most powerful monsters in the game (30 Str) are puny compared to that. The Hulk makes Elysian Titans and the Tarrasque look like toddlers with muscular dystrophy by comparison.
The more powerful versions of Thor? Even stronger than that.
Superman? Stronger than both of them.

Don't get me wrong, I know how powerful Hulk is. But he is certainly not invulnerable, and those "destroy everything" attacks you mention typically force him out of Hulk form and leave him weakened afterwards.
Very very few people in marvel can take a hit better than the Hulk can. It's a very short list. The Sentry... and Deadpool? That... might actually be it, honestly, and Deadpool's cheating - the only reason he can do it is because he's been cursed to be unable to die.
And that's before mentioning he has arguably the strongest healing factor in comics. So even if you do manage to hurt him, he heals it almost instantly.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-01, 05:56 PM

Utter nonsense, lol.
The Hulk is so powerful that his strength alone is a direct threat to the planet itself. He's so much of a threat that Earth's mightiest and smartest heroes all came together to put into place a plan to remove the Hulk from Earth... for safety. And when he got back? he was even stronger.
A 24 Str barb is puny in the extreme compared to that. Hell, the most powerful monsters in the game (30 Str) are puny compared to that. The Hulk makes Elysian Titans and the Tarrasque look like toddlers with muscular dystrophy by comparison.
The more powerful versions of Thor? Even stronger than that.
Superman? Stronger than both of them.

One big issue with all of these comparisons to superheroes (and I agree with your point here) is that there are dozens of versions of each superhero with widely-varying power levels. Ranging from barely better than a mortal to Gurren Toppen Langan style absurdity. As in, there are comics where the Hulk (or version of him) is literally throwing stars and planets around.

clash

2022-03-01, 08:57 PM

The problem with the comparison between iron man and Batman and magic items is that Batman and iron man don't need there dm to have out items to them. If you want martials to have features that give them explicit magic items then sure I'm completely on board with that but it shouldn't be up to the dm to create class features for their players.

rel

2022-03-01, 11:31 PM

relative strength and weakness of magic in D&D

There seemed to be some doubts about this so I'll give some concrete examples.

To avoid a selection bias, I'll use the top 3 entries from googles answer to the question 'what are the most popular fantasy universes'; Middle Earth, Narnia and Westeros.

The magic of Middle Earth is subtle and limited, Gandalf is often described as a 5th level magic user and while this is an uncharitable assessment, he is indicative of the general levels of power.
Magic might be used to ward off danger or bolster allies, but when violence is required, it is handled with blades and armies.
When a journey must be undertaken people walk or ride.
When something must be found or discovered, people are sent out to scout.

Magic in Narnia is rare and often powerful but again, quite limited. The White Witch could blanket the land in ice but once the spell was broken she couldn't refresh it by resting for 8 hours. She could petrify people with her wand but not conjure defensive magic when confronted by an angry lion.
And the other magic user's we see in later books are far less impressive, their magic is limited to parlor tricks.

Magic in Westeros is flat out weaker than magic in D&D. It's often costly, comes with drawbacks and most importantly, tends to be limited by theme;
Fire mages can't raise the dead or change their appearance, they can cast fireball.

Now counter examples can no doubt be found and objections raised, but this illustrates the general trend.

Magic in D&D is powerful, easily accessible and broad in scope.
It's a rare setting that can even survive the presence of characters that can teleport across the world, divine the locations of people and objects and bring back the dead.
A party of D&D casters can do all those things multiple times per day. And also fly, turn invisible and resolve pretty much any problem you can name given at most day to prepare.
And on top of all that they can use their magic to defend themselves so effectively they can stand toe to toe with highly skilled warriors in battle.

Ulsan Krow

2022-03-02, 04:51 AM

I mean, by level 20 most Martials are effectively on the same level as the Hulk or Superman. Just look at their high level abilities:

Barbarian? 24 Constitution and 24 Strength with no magic items, in a world where 22 is the best you can get without relying on a belt. On top of that, they can be in a permanent state of Rage, since their Rage doesn't end early, they have unlimited Rages, and they can just restart their Rage via a Bonus Action before a minute ends. Not only that, but all Barbarians have an ability that just lets them remain alive once they reach 0 HP via a DC 10 Con save. Now the Con Save does increase by 5 after every use, but Barbarians eventually get a +13 to Con saves if they maxed out their Con. They are guaranteed one use of it, and only start having a chance of failure once it reaches a DC 25.

And that's not counting classes like the Zealot Barbarian, who doesn't die at 0 HP, or the Bear Totem, which effectively doubles their HP for everything except Psychic damage. Tell me, how many ordinary troops are needed to just kill ONE level 20 Barbarian?

Pretty much every single Martial is the same, with the sad exception of the Ranger and Fighter. But then again, Rangers have always been a bit weak in 5e, while Fighters have amazing Subclasses to make up for it. Look at high level Monks, Paladins, and Rogues. Monks can become as tanky as a Barbarian and are invisible as they do it, Rogues are literally the most consistent skill monkey thanks to Expertise and the inability to roll under 10, and Paladins just become ever more broken and OP.

Don't get me wrong, spells tend to be stronger than all of that. But like it or not, by the time you reach those high levels you're not at the same level of the X-Men. You're at the Hulk's level, or Superman's level. And that's simply baked into 5e's system itself. I'm not pulling out insane spells or broken Multiclass builds. Just your average, no-feat, no-multiclass martials at level 20 go well beyond your proposed power range.

Both the Hulk and Superman, in even their weakest incarnations, are so absurdly beyond DnD martials in power level its pointless to quantify.

The weakest Hulk can lift in excess of 100 tons by canon, i.e. possessing a strength score well into the thousands. Now the more variable feats include pulling a planet together, straight up squatting a mountain, smashing a planet sized asteroid into smithereens, throwing a gargantuan sized creature to the moon, and literally shaking the multiverse with the force of his punches. Indicating a strength score anywhere from the billions to being literally beyond infinite. And his durability allows him to tolerate days of fighting with equally powerful entities, i.e. indicating his hitpoints to also be beyond infinite.

Hulk wouldn't be a level 20 fighter, or even an epic fighter, or even an epic 3.5e fighter. He'd be like level 1000, or something, provided each level was adequately exponential compared to the previous.

Superman is a whole other ballgame entirely. Now Superman is super, super, SUPER fast on top of all that comparably absurd canonical superstrength. Like sextillions of times faster than light fast. Now your level 20 fighter can attack 4, 5, action surge for 9 times in a round. Optimised a Samurai can attack 22 times in a single round. At that speed handing out an extra attack every 5 levels or so is going to make the level system entirely pointless for good old Superman because then his level would have more 0s than a box of Cheerios.

Not to mention all of the ridiculous metaphysical shenanigans he can for some reason pull off with his super physique. Reversing time and smashing dimensions and everything.

At the very least, more than a little bit stronger than the level 20 Barbarian.

rel

2022-03-08, 02:19 AM

I've outlined my issues with the casting classes, my problem with mundane characters is somewhat related.

The mundane classes don't have much beyond combat skill. They can defeat powerful enemies, so what. This is D&D, every class can defeat powerful enemies. That's not a sign of power, it's the barrier for entry.

But D&D is a game famously built around 3 pillars, only one of which is combat. What do the mundane classes do when confronted with a challenge that does not boil down to 'remove X hit points from thing Y'?

When asked to find and get to a sunken ship, rush a convoy of supplies over a mountain, access a buried dungeon or find and retrieve a lost heir or ring of power the players of casters can look through their long laundry list of cosmic power and find many tools to apply to the problem.

Meanwhile the players of mundane classes have significantly fewer options:
-ask the GM for a solution that does involve removing hit points
-ask the GM to simplify the challenge down to a skill check (which their characters are probably not especially good at)
-make plans using the class features of the other characters or plans involving no special powers at all
-not participate in the challenge

Kane0

2022-03-08, 02:50 AM

Saelethil

2022-03-08, 12:18 PM

MadBear

2022-03-08, 04:16 PM

For out of combat martial utility, what if we gave them a nerfed version of Reliable Talent that raises the floor without raising the ceiling?Maybe something like:

Reliable Practice
Choose 1 (if you are an Artificer, Paladin, or Ranger) or 2 (if you are a Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, or Rogue) skills or tools with which you have proficiency. Whenever you make an ability check using you chosen skill or tool and the number rolled on the d20 is lower than your PB you can treat it as if you had rolled the number equal to your PB.
Multiclassing
You cannot gain this feature through multiclassing and if you take levels in a full casting class and the level of your new class exceeds one half of your martial level you loose this feature.

It would be a minor bump at low levels but it would grow with the character without fully overshadowing Reliable Talent. You could even require that their chosen skills be on their class list if you are concerned about too much homogeneity between characters.
Another way you could do this is using half your martial level instead of your PB. This would provide less benefit early on (before the caster/martial divide) and a higher benefit later.

If this is the route we're going, I'd think something more akin to some limited resource that can be utilized by these classes that work with pillars outside of combat that they can pick.

Level 3: (Pick 2, that can be used a number of times equal to proficiency)

- Intimidating Glare: If you roll less then a 10 on intimidate count the roll as being a 10.
- Leader of Men: Can inspire up to your proficiency in low level laborers to come along and help out in a dungeon (Only non-combat tasks though)
- Gorilla Strength: If you roll less then 10 intimidate count it as being 10.
- Tracking Expert: If you roll then 10 0n survival, count it as being 10
- I heard that at the bar: A number of times equal to your proficiency you can gain proficiency in a knowledge check as if you had proficiency with that knowledge

Level 11: (Pick 1 more and can replace a lower level one with one of these)

- Paralyzing glare: Same as above but now it's 15
- Commander of Men: Can command local authorities to recognize your authority as a leader who demands respect. They won't go against direct orders but see you as an authority to be obeyed regardless.
- Giant Strength: Same as above but now 15
- That one time I was so drunk that....: You seem to always have the right gear on hand. If your group is missing needed gear you can roll a d10 and if you roll under your proficiency you find it stored in your pack as long as it's worth less then 50 X Proficiency In gold.

The main thing would be that these abilities should not be usable in combat and purely to help support the other 2 pillars of play.

goodpeople25

2022-03-08, 04:36 PM

The Hulk is so powerful that his strength alone is a direct threat to the planet itself. He's so much of a threat that Earth's mightiest and smartest heroes all came together to put into place a plan to remove the Hulk from Earth... for safety. And when he got back? he was even stronger.

:smallconfused: They remade Planet Hulk when did that happen? At least they kept the coming back even stronger and more dangerous part. :smallbiggrin:

Regardless it is a relevant example of the Hulk.

rel

2022-03-09, 01:09 AM

nerfed version of Reliable Talent...

My problems with the 'good at skills' approach is that it requires the challenge be reducible to a skill check, which a good challenge shouldn't be. And that every class can already make skill checks and just being better or more reliable at them is very hard to turn into a unique niche that makes the class feel special and different from all the other classes.

limited resource approach...

This seems like a decent start; ignoring the rather dull + numbers options, you have unique, un-replicatable powers balanced by limited use.

I'd add that they should all be reliable; no roll to see if it works, it just does. Like the fly spell.

And should all be limited in use if only to ensure that the effects are powerful.

Schwann145

2022-03-09, 09:51 AM

Seconded. Combat is one of three touted segments of the game, and by far the most emphasised. When you get into the noncombat portions all PCs have basic capabilities like ability checks, and beyond that classes get a sprinkling of features on top of that. Casters get am additional swathe of spells to choose from too, which gives them a big edge over the martials.

Thirded. And agreed.

And it's never going to change from this.

Building new, non-spell/non-combat mechanics into the game would be so drastically different than anything D&D has ever existed as, in any edition, that it would be wholly unrecognizable as D&D if done. And we all know what happens when developers change D&D even a little bit from what it's "supposed" to be - mass hysteria, outrage, people fleeing the brand like rats on a sinking ship, etc.
Fandoms truly do ruin everything.

MadBear

2022-03-09, 10:32 AM

This seems like a decent start; ignoring the rather dull + numbers options, you have unique, un-replicatable powers balanced by limited use.

I'd add that they should all be reliable; no roll to see if it works, it just does. Like the fly spell.

And should all be limited in use if only to ensure that the effects are powerful.

I mean, if you have a better way list of options, I'm definitely interested. I just put down what came to mind readily.

The main goal being giving martials some power that would be both non magical feeling, while still being powerful. Because the true fact at the end of the day is, martials either need to just be better at combat then other classes, or they need the ability to interact with the other pillars of the game on equal footing. I'm fine with either, but the current system where they're on mostly equal footing (until late levels) and having limited access to the other pillars, is frustrating.

I also get why many people don't want a martial who can walk thru stone walls as if they weren't there on brute strength alone. I get not wanting martials who act like Goku from DBZ. Hence my original solution being to give them the gimik of using magic items as a bridge.

The other options I've seen in other systems have different ways of dealing with this problem. DCC gives fighters the ability to just do cool stuff, but wizards are vastly more powerful. This is balanced by the corruption of their character and how easily they can be fried into uselessness. Basically, yeah magics powerful, but only the insane use it because of its danger.