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

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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.

Exactly. 5e D&D is clearly supers and mythical already. Is that an issue? I'd say yes but let's leave that out of a conversation that is about assuming magic/casters stay the same, then what sort of martial needs to exist to be a peer at high levels.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

That's it right there.

D&D says it allows A, B, C, X, Y, and Z but only has mechanics for A, B, and C.

And all the subsystems are designed around A, B, and C.

So to add X, Y, and Z not only do you need to design X, Y, and Z, you need to redesign the auxiliary subsystems to encompass X, Y and Z

For example, the PHB casters and martials are designed around having magic items. You can play without magic items but it does require ignoring chunks of the DMG and PHB.

A Mythic Martial who doesn't need magic items would have to be designed in a world with magic items as well. So where does its base of power cap? Damage near the Fighter, Rogue, or Wizard? Rewrite the treasure tables? Etc etc.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Each additional attack is one more saving throw to roll and check and then assess after.

And one extra attack is insignificant. Which is all that happens with that party from levels 5 to 16

 

[Micah Sweet]

A redditor put it rather succinctly:



and Ill also quote a response:



And a follow up response to the idea that "worse" casters doesn't equal funner Martials:





Yes, because pointing out an easily predictable consequence is "speaking for everyone".




It has been explained, and it was handwaved away as a non-issue by people who don't like people telling them their problems don't exist.

All caster parties are extremely hard to DM for, and the game is not going to be made better by turning that on all the time.



Let me fix that:

"Because WOTC is doing it."



My post on LNO is still there, and is very close to being graced by my first go at a Mage, in fact.

Do you expect that nerfing casters would be fun for caster players, or are you only concerned about martial players' fun?

 

[Chaosmancer]

But does nothing for people who don't actually like whatever trappings you gave that class.

And designing a better druid does nothing for those who hate nature-based classes. And designing a better cleric does nothing for those who hate religion in their games. And designing a better monk does nothing for those who think hand-to-hand combat is stupid.

Yes, people who hate an idea won't like an implementation of that idea. So what?!

Id appreciate if you would stop putting words into my mouth. There is a distinct difference and nuance between "violates the genre" and "these aren't DND"; busted casters have never been good for the game nor consistent with the genres its mechanically emulating.



The other name is Appendix N, which isn't a useful name to invoke over the more recognizable genres that encapsulate virtually everything the Appendix.

The inclusion of Scifi in the appendix is seldom recognized, especially nowadays, but still there as you pointed out.

If 5e's probblem was miniscule amounts of science fiction elements creeping in, this wouldn't be the same 150 page topic.

Busted casters aren't any good for science fiction any more than they are epic fantasy or sword and sorcery.

What genre is a universe spanning, psychically connected array of super-intelligent brains that traveled back in time to save their reality spanning empire from collapse and are taking over reality once again? Is is the same genre where you could easily find a dragon ascending to godhood by connecting its soul to all versions of itself across a multiverse of time and place and read the echoes of time? Maybe it is the same genre where you help the child of a god find his lost cat so he can sleep at night.

DnD covers all of those, so which genre is that? Is it sword and sorcery with its gritty blood in the sand? Nope. Seems like it is something different.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

At what point does the game no longer work? 5e is hardly perfect, but it works, for most people, right now. Or do you just mean the game doesn't work for you?

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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.

I will stop circling after this.

I don't know what Brindlewood is but I think the situation would be:

Brindle now has a bunch of tank combat (Wizards).

I know you don't like that and want to return to the Brindle without tank combat (if it ever existed).

That is a fine conversation to have. I even agree with you that Brindle would be better without tanks. That is not the conversation we are having though. Let's have that conversation on another thread.

We are assuming that Brindle will have tanks for the foreseeable future in our posts. Given that, some people really want armored APC carriers as well in Brindle. We already have tanks so it's hard to see how having APCs will violate anything more than is already violated. And the people who really like APCs over tanks will get their thing. They will be happier ad the people that don't want tanks or APCs at all will be at the same level of unhappiness.

I know you don't want either tanks or APCs in, but saying that in retort to assuming tanks remain is not really engaging in the same exercise.

 

[Chaosmancer]

100% correct. The difference is, when one is already given the options and one is not, the one that is not often comes up with a broader range of solutions. It's proven over and over again. So you are correct. The wizard can think of the same solutions. But the real life results in psychology often state they don't. And that is because they are given a block of text that explicitly tells them what they are to do and its intended outcomes.
In other words, it's a game of chance, and human minds like a sure bet. So the wizard will err on the side of the sure bet and not even think about the optional "chance" categories.

And if you know the wizard's plan is a sure bet, then that fighter is going to follow that exact same psychological model and not even think about an optional chance category. Because why would they, there is a sure bet in the wizard's backpocket, or the bard's, or the cleric's.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And if you know the wizard's plan is a sure bet, then that fighter is going to follow that exact same psychological model and not even think about an optional chance category. Because why would they, there is a sure bet in the wizard's backpocket, or the bard's, or the cleric's.

And since we aren't getting rid of the casters' sure bets, we are giving them to non-casters as well. Pretty straight-forward if you ask me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Theres a difference between something being a system problem and something being an instruction problem.

A computer working perfectly can still be a problematic enigma for someone who doesn't know how to use it.

5e has a lot more instruction problems than it does system ones, and most of the system problems would be practically invisible with adequate instruction.

With respect, it can be an instruction problem as well as a system problem.