• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
The point was more, if it can be balanced at 1-5 then the same balance paradigm there can be mostly extended to higher levels.

The problem is that the amount of growth martials get from level 6-20 and casters get from level 6-20 is extremely different.

As a thought experiment. Imagine a fighter that got an extra attack every other level past level 5. Total of 9 extra attacks at level 20, unlimited uses if indominatble, action surge and second wind. No new abilities given - just bigger numbers/more uses. Fighter is still as mundane as he ever was, yet likely overshadows all other classes now, albeit not in every part of the game.
I think that's just a legacy thing though. D&D has always been kind of "fight bandits, then goblins, then hobgoblins, then orcs, then bugbears, then ogres, then trolls, then giants, then maybe dragons or go on a tour of other realities to fight demons, devils, and weirder things" in it's execution. And if you play the game in that fashion, the capabilities of the characters may require a sharp uptick in both power and scope.

If you play a game where you're fighting Orcus, you might need to be a Beowulf or Cu Chulainn. Or have sufficient magical backup (and perhaps an artifact) to do so. Or at least, for it to be believable to do so. But I feel that D&D is meant to be played with fun > verisimilitude, so maybe you can have an adventuring party of Legolas, Dr. Strange, Superman, and John McLane fighting Elder Things and it works just fine!

But again, D&D's systems seem built to reflect the gradual increase in scope of challenges and adventures on the player side, regardless of whether or not a given campaign increases it's scope in the same manner.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You know, that's a good point. People are arguing that humans on Faerun have ambient magic that allows them to do things like ignore gravity and shrug off swords nonmagically, how many would accept humans with natural hair of blue, pink or purple? Skin of gold, pearl or starlight? Eyes of yellow, red or pure white? No explanation, no cosmetics, no magic. Just born that way.

Seems perfectly fine to me. In my Artra setting humans are not quite so wild, but certainly commonly exhibit phenotypes that do not exist on Earth or at least are super rare here. And this is a setting where different humanoid species cannot cross-breed. On one in which they could there would be even more variation.

And about calling them humans, couple of points. The current humans on Erath are not only humans that have existed. Even within homo sapiens there were "ethnicities" that currently no longer exist. Prehistoric population with dark skin and blue eyes, etc. And human can be seen as wider concept than that, it can mean whole genus homo, not just sapiens. So neanderthals were humans. And of course in fantasy we could easily imagine other variations. I like how in Final Fantasy they tend to call human equivalents "hume" or "hyur" etc. I think this helps to communicate that whilst these people are human-like, they're not exactly out modern day Earth humans.
 

Remathilis

Legend
But Faerun humans can do things Earth humans can't, despite implicitly in-universe supposed to be descendants of Earth people.

Consider this. John Carter, Jeddak of Jeddaks, Warlord of Mars is an Earth human (supposedly, let's not get into how old he might be).

But on Barsoom, he's a heavy gravity lifeform on a planet with less gravity, giving him superhuman powers despite not explicitly (longevity aside) being human.

So one could easily state that being exposed to a world suffused with magical energy, coming from a world that doesn't have magical beasts and Elves running around could give you abilities beyond mortal ken. It's a very old literary trope.

And there's a lot of evidence to support this in D&D, historically. It's hard to prove if psychic abilities exist on our planet, even if someone pulls off an incredible thing, they probably can't do it again on command under scrutiny, at least with consistency.

But a D&D human could totally have psionics and be able to perform them again and again on command.

Now Micah, I know what your objection is. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, D&D never states that it's humans are not the same as Earth humans. Well, at least, not that I've ever seen. And it's a valid point that it probably should. One shouldn't have to use logic or deep dive into the game's worlds and mechanics to discern this fact. It should be obvious.

And certainly, mechanical arguments are difficult because it's hard to differentiate between "the game is making an absolute statement about the capabilities of (insert thing)" from "this is an abstraction for ease of play". Which leads to a lot of these same arguments.

I can prove that there are humans in Faerun who are not like Earth humans and do things humans can't. It was actually quite trivial to do in prior editions, a little harder in 5e, but still possible. What does that mean, though? What are we supposed to take away from that?

The game books stay silent on the issue, and for good reason- the idea that humans aren't humans might not be something you want in your game. And that's not necessarily a bad thing (I called it a mistake upthread, but that's mostly because I tire of some of these talking points, lol).

The truth is, D&D shouldn't tell you what isn't possible. It should tell you what could be possible. D&D is for everyone, everyone has a right to play and have fun in their own way. If that means you want to view the game with the default assumption that it starts with our world with exceptions, and that makes the game more enjoyable for you and your group- go for it!

You just have to occasionally squint and look the other way when there are exceptions that aren't stated. I mean, the core system has abstractions that we really shouldn't engage with because they make no sense, like, you know, hit points, armor class, and so on.

However, it's an equally valid way to play the game to look at these exceptions as defining the game's worlds and settings. I would say to a point, or you get a Tippyverse which does not resemble traditional D&D at all, but it's still valid, as long as the game remains fun for the players.

For example, despite explicitly being stated as being Earth in the past, there exists humans in Middle-Earth with abilities Earth humans don't have (Aragorn, with his High Numenorean lineage). Does this mean Men in Middle-Earth aren't humans? Or should we take it to mean that, in a world where magic is at a higher level than it is (apparently) on our planet now that humans have additional capabilities we don't seem to possess?

John Carter though, if he returns to Earth, becomes a normal human with human limits. It is the external power source of Barsoom that gives him his power. That is external and supernatural. Any human in Barsoom also gets those abilities.

So if Faerun is the source of human abilities beyond mundane Earth, that doesn't make those abilities mundane, that makes EVERYTHING supernatural. Supernatural cows. Supernatural corn, supernatural humans. I guess the Syndrome Conundrum applies (when everyone is special, no one is) but that's still just saying there are no mundane things in Faerun, just those who haven't learned to use their supernatural gifts yet.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
If you play a game where you're fighting Orcus, you might need to be a Beowulf or Cu Chulainn. Or have sufficient magical backup (and perhaps an artifact) to do so. Or at least, for it to be believable to do so. But I feel that D&D is meant to be played with fun > verisimilitude, so maybe you can have an adventuring party of Legolas, Dr. Strange, Superman, and John McLane fighting Elder Things and it works just fine!
The reason this discussions keeps happening is because that kind of party in d&d doesn’t work just fine.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I like how in Final Fantasy they tend to call human equivalents "hume" or "hyur" etc. I think this helps to communicate that whilst these people are human-like, they're not exactly out modern day Earth humans.

Agreed. That thought had run in my head during this conversation and I think it would be appropriate here too. It goes back to the idea that if they aren't going to obey by the assumptions of what a human can do, call them something else.
 

John Carter though, if he returns to Earth, becomes a normal human with human limits. It is the external power source of Barsoom that gives him his power. That is external and supernatural. Any human in Barsoom also gets those abilities.

So if Faerun is the source of human abilities beyond mundane Earth, that doesn't make those abilities mundane, that makes EVERYTHING supernatural. Supernatural cows. Supernatural corn, supernatural humans. I guess the Syndrome Conundrum applies (when everyone is special, no one is) but that's still just saying there are no mundane things in Faerun, just those who haven't learned to use their supernatural gifts yet.
Maybe, but this is not a game-useful definition of "supernatural".

Saying that everything in a fantasy setting is fantastical (by earth standards) should not be that surprising.
 



TwoSix

"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
Agreed. That thought had run in my head during this conversation and I think it would be appropriate here too. It goes back to the idea that if they aren't going to obey by the assumptions of what a human can do, call them something else.
I think that's a bit more than is necessary; most people are using "human" to refer to their appearance or concept, not their actual capabilities.

No one says Harry Potter isn't a human, even though he has capabilities that are impossible for an actual Earth human.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
The reason this discussions keeps happening is because that kind of party in d&d doesn’t work just fine.
Some will state it does. And for them, it's likely true, but there's probably other factors involved in that. The experience of the players and the DM, the DM's style, what kinds of foes are chosen, and of course, the house rules.

Because what DM doesn't have at least a page (if not 12) of house rules that redefines the system and supports their favorite method of play?

Yet rarely do I see anyone say "I don't have these problems because I house ruled them away". It's far more "the game doesn't have these problems and I think you're insane to state they exist", lol.
 

Remove ads

Top