D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[Scott Christian]

At that point though the question will be:

Is the obsolescence of the other fighters an actual problem?

Obsolescence happens to a lot of things, mostly because something better comes along. As long as it's still balanced at an overall level within the game, if we arrive at something better, what is the harm?

The point is, it won't be balanced.
I guess that is the entire point. You guys want something that is balanced with the caster. Some believe it already is balanced.

So some want the caster nerfed. Others want a mythic fighter, which means they increase in power. But that statement alone disrupts those that believe it already is balanced. By making a fighter stronger, they have disrupted the balance; therefore, creating the same problem you were trying to fix. Now it is just a problem for the opposite side.

In truth, balance is an illusion. The DM does more to balance the game than any ruleset. Once people accept that, then perhaps they might understand their character's roles better.

 

[Emberashh]

You can't even imagine a fighter coming up with an imaginative solution to a problem that doesn't involve the screw.

Its a concept in game design that framing can have pretty drastic effects on how people approach the game.

Thats more or less one of the fundamental reason why the OSR split off as its own culture; when you have a huge amount of the game dedicated to explicitly codified buttons, you frame the game as a game of buttons, and you need to take care to ensure, if you're going to combine non-buttons with buttons, that non-buttons are a valid means of engaging with the game, not just mechanically but communicatively; people need to see a non-button and not go looking for the button. (Like asking where the "rule" is in Improvise Action)

Thats why I hold DCCs Mighty Deed in such high regard (and why its almost always one of the first things to sell people on when introducing them to the game), and why Ive iterated more than once that 5e's IA can and should be better integrated into the system.

 

[Incenjucar]

The point is, it won't be balanced.
I guess that is the entire point. You guys want something that is balanced with the caster. Some believe it already is balanced.

So some want the caster nerfed. Others want a mythic fighter, which means they increase in power. But that statement alone disrupts those that believe it already is balanced. By making a fighter stronger, they have disrupted the balance; therefore, creating the same problem you were trying to fix. Now it is just a problem for the opposite side.

In truth, balance is an illusion. The DM does more to balance the game than any ruleset. Once people accept that, then perhaps they might understand their character's roles better.

Then the DM can balance the mythic fighter too, everyone wins!

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

The point is, it won't be balanced.
I guess that is the entire point. You guys want something that is balanced with the caster. Some believe it already is balanced.

So some want the caster nerfed. Others want a mythic fighter, which means they increase in power. But that statement alone disrupts those that believe it already is balanced. By making a fighter stronger, they have disrupted the balance; therefore, creating the same problem you were trying to fix. Now it is just a problem for the opposite side.

In truth, balance is an illusion. The DM does more to balance the game than any ruleset. Once people accept that, then perhaps they might understand their character's roles better.

As said, forget the Fighter. This is an entirely new class with martial flavor.

Buy yes, that is the point. And creating the mythic martial that is balanced with the caster will let the "free markets" figure it out so to speak.

Perhaps at tables where people have the experience where Fighters are balanced with casters, people will play Fighters and Mythic Martials in equal proportions based on their fluff preferences.

Other tables that did have problems, might exclusively play the Mythic Martials if they intend to play at higher levels.

There is no disruption of balance.

Either the Fighter is already the equal of the caster, and it's just a preference.

OR there really is a disparity between Fighter and caster and then people that want a more equal martial get it.

 

[Scott Christian]

As said, forget the Fighter. This is an entirely new class with martial flavor.

Buy yes, that is the point. And creating the mythic martial that is balanced with the caster will let the "free markets" figure it out so to speak.

Perhaps at tables where people have the experience where Fighters are balanced with casters, people will play Fighters and Mythic Martials in equal proportions based on their fluff preferences.

Other tables that did have problems, might exclusively play the Mythic Martials if they intend to play at higher levels.

There is no disruption of balance.

Either the Fighter is already the equal of the caster, and it's just a preference.

OR there really is a disparity between Fighter and caster and then people that want a more equal martial get it.

Sounds good.

I like the thought of a mythic being able to counter a spell targeted at them through a sheer act of willpower. I also like the idea that a mythic can substitute strength for other abilities in skills. I also like the idea that a mythic can sway crowds through an act of fighting. I also like the idea of a mythic being able to jump, leap, roll out of the way equal to misty step.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I could say this is the stage where people erroneously consider any notion that the problem isn't as severe as proposed is the same thing as saying there is no problem, and the stage where people just skirt around or outright ignore the genre problem rather than address it.

Which genre problem is that?

Is it the Genre problem of "what fantasy story involves summoning an angel once a day to work for you?"

Is it the genre problem of "what fantasy story involves casually returning 200 yr old dead back to full life and vitality with no more than speaking their name? Every day."

My problem with the genre is the sheer number of people insisting DnD is part of a genre which the mechanics of DnD clearly tell us it is not.

 

[Emberashh]

My problem with the genre is the sheer number of people insisting DnD is part of a genre which the mechanics of DnD clearly tell us it is not.

Thats funny, because thats exactly what we're telling you is the problem and why parts of the game aren't cutting it.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Thats funny, because thats exactly what we're telling you is the problem and why parts of the game aren't cutting it.

That's not the current discussion though? That belongs in the "let's bring D&D more in line with the SS genre and talk about an overhaul of magic to do so as a start. then we can go back to martial under these new parameters". It's a good topic but not what the majority of people have been talking about for the last 20 pages?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, I think if everything else remains the same then adding a mythic martial just somewhat levels the playing field for those that want to be martially and play at high levels next to the current jacked up Wizard.

We already have jacked up Wizards which basically violate most fantasy genres anyway.

For me:

Perfect world = total redesign of spellcasters, and martials should be made more interesting but don't have to go gonzo

Assuming spellcasters remain the same = it's the bad design we have and leads the high level game into gonzo supers territory so just add a martial equivalent (keeping the existing FIghter). It gives players that want it a chance to play that kind of character. And since we can play all caster parties now anyway, it will not "double down" on broken. It's the same broken with a happier sub group of players.

And honestly, I don't want to redesign spellcasters. I've seen all caster parties, they can be a ton of fun. Yes, it means you aren't playing Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings... but I don't WANT to play those, I want to play DnD. A game where a Runt Pit Fiend can adventure with the daughter of an Archangel into a crashed spaceship and use a laser rifle to shoot legally-distinct Cthullu. Something you could do in SECOND EDITION.

[Edit: This turned into a bit of a rant. I do want to say this isn't directly aimed at you Bert, it is just a general frustration]

Look, I get people want serious stories. I do to. But having high power or even silly sounding concepts doesn't mean you can't have serious stories.

One of the most deeply touching moments of friendship and emotional story-telling I have ever witnessed involved an entire season of a show following the kidnapping and rescue of a woman. We saw how her entire island, every member of her family, her entire culture was destroyed when she was eight, and one of her only friends dying to save her. We saw her hunted by the world government, forced to run and fight as people turned her in for the bounty on her head. We saw her give herself up to the government to save her friends, just waiting to be executed as a small man without talent tortured and beat her, until her friends arrived and demanded she be honest that she actually wants to live and not be in fear for her life, and declared they would fight the entire world if that was what it took for her to have that.

Those friends?

A man made out of rubber. A man who wields three swords by holding one in his mouth. A man who uses a kid's slingshot as a weapon. A woman who uses a colorful rod that makes weather. A man who kicks people because he's a chef and won't use his hands to fight. A cyborg in a speedo. A musical skeleton with an afro. A reindeer that shapeshifts into a monster.

It is a silly, ridiculous group of people and concepts. Yet you will never convince me that the story they told was not grand and epic in the truest sense of the world.

It is endlessly frustrating to me that people take this idea that they could never take a story set in a world with a high power level seriously. High power, even if it is "everyone can fly and shoot laser beams" doesn't remove your ability to tell a story about friendship, or about loss, or about grief. Serious stories tackle serious issues. A story about loss and grief isn't better and more impactful if it takes place in France during WW2, in the depths of the Mines of Moria, on the Starship Enterprise, or on the planet Amazing Bubblegum. I know people who refuse to take any "silly fantasy story" seriously, and it makes me frustrated the same way that this does. Because it derides story-telling by declaring that the only stories that can matter are those that are non-fiction and like our real world. Being closer to the real world doesn't make your story better. It doesn't make it more artful. It just makes it take place in a world like the real world. That's it. You aren't a more cultured person enjoying more cultured stories just because you feel like the story you are consuming "could really happen".

 

[Emberashh]

That's not the current discussion though? That belongs in the "let's bring D&D more in line with the SS genre and talk about an overhaul of magic to do so as a start. then we can go back to martial under these new parameters". It's a good topic but not what the majority of people have been talking about for the last 20 pages?

They're the same topic. You can't divest the genre question from mechanics anymore than vice versa.

Ive said it already in this topic, unless you're willing to abandon what DND is supposed to be and will explicitly embrace a different genre altogether (Like 4th Edition did), you cannot continue to violate the genre and result in a game that'll actually work.

If I take Brindlewood Bay and start cramming in a bunch of tank combat, its the same issue and I can't sit there and act like I can, somehow, balance rigorous tank combat with little old ladies solving mysteries.