D&D General D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?

[Aldarc]

I think you are taking this too personal. The once an hour BS was designed to tell all of us to shut up.

Is this you?

IDK, why dont all the fighters suck folks take this advice?

IMHO, this makes it pretty personal as it's pointing fingers at other posters here. You probably shouldn't be upset when people get upset by you throwing rocks in their direction.

 

[payn]

Is this you?

IMHO, this makes it pretty personal as it's pointing fingers at other posters here.

I was making a joke.

 

[Aldarc]

I was making a joke.

If so, it was poorly communication.

That said, I am not opposed to having classes designed to perform certain functions and playstyles: e.g., power source + roles. When new players came to play 4e and said that they wanted to play a mage that blasts things, it was easy to point to just point to the Sorcerer or Warlock, because that's what they were designed to do. That is the strength of such design. It's also why I like the core philosophy behind the Magic the Gathering colors as being informative of playstyle. Players will gravitate towards certain colors (and/or combinations thereof) for certain playstyles. I liked this in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, which had classes designed playstyles. Wanted to play the heavily armored Strength warrior? Pick the Warmain. Wanted to play the lightly armored Dexterity warrior? Pick the Unfettered. I want more of that rather than less.

My own preference, FWIW, would be for the Fighter to be the Martial Bruiser, then make a Knight into the Martial Defender/Tank. And I think that it would be great if the Rogue was the Martial Assassin or the Ranger was the Martial Marksman. So when you say -

IDK, why dont all the fighters suck folks take this advice?

- there is a part of me that thinks "Don't threaten me with a good time!" because of how I would love to see more of this style of role-based class design that I know that you dislike.

 

[payn]

If so, it was poorly communication.

At least one person got it.

That said, I am not opposed to having classes designed to perform certain functions and playstyles: e.g., power source + roles. When new players came to play 4e and said that they wanted to play a mage that blasts things, it was easy to point to just point to the Sorcerer or Warlock, because that's what they were designed to do. That is the strength of such design. It's also why I like the core philosophy behind the Magic the Gathering colors as being informative of playstyle. Players will gravitate towards certain colors (and/or combinations thereof) for certain playstyles. I liked this in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, which had classes designed playstyles. Wanted to play the heavily armored Strength warrior? Pick the Warmain. Wanted to play the lightly armored Dexterity warrior? Pick the Unfettered. I want more of that rather than less.

My own preference, FWIW, would be for the Fighter to be the Martial Bruiser, then make a Knight into the Martial Defender/Tank. And I think that it would be great if the Rogue was the Martial Assassin or the Ranger was the Martial Marksman. So when you say -

- there is a part of me that thinks "Don't threaten me with a good time!" because of how I would love to see more of this style of role-based class design that I know that you dislike.

I'm sympathetic to the folks who dont like the "just play the thing that does what you want" which is why I took exception to it being tossed at me from folks that are the usual target of the sentiment.

 

[Aldarc]

At least one person got it.

Clearly good enough to go pro.

I'm sympathetic to the folks who dont like the "just play the thing that does what you want" which is why I took exception to it being tossed at me from folks that are the usual target of the sentiment.

What else are you supposed to play? I don't play a fighter to be a mage that casts 9th level spells. If I want to do that, then I look at the fullcasters. Presumably I should play the thing that does what I want, right?

 

[payn]

Clearly good enough to go pro.


What else are you supposed to play? I don't play a fighter to be a mage that casts 9th level spells. If I want to do that, then I look at the fullcasters. Presumably I should play the thing that does what I want, right?

Not sure where all this animosity comes from. I apologize for offending you.

 

[Lanefan]

You're still good at it. You have the proficiencies. You never lose them. You're just not taking advantage of them.

This is literally 100% identical to saying that a 4e Fighter still has a mark and a punishment, they can just choose not to use it. What is the difference? Why is a feature in one thing a shackle, and a feature in another merely a perk?


Why not instead have everyone be reasonably competent at the things the game expects everyone to participate in--the things D&D has called "pillars"--and then make each exceptional at some particular thing? Because the key flaw with your proposal is that if there are (say) 4 distinct things people can be good at, you're sitting there bored 3/4 of the time. That...doesn't seem like a good or effective way to get everyone active and enjoying the process of play. It, in fact, seems like a great way to make people mostly bored.

If you're good in one area and mostly pointless in everything else, the natural incentive is to make the thing you're good at relevant as much as possible, so you can be active and participatory as often as possible, not window-dressing. Why not instead make incentives where players are eager to participate at all times? Why not make incentives such that, instead of getting the most enjoyment by making your niche the most important one, you rather get the most bang for your buck by building the team's contribution, collectively? Someone will often be the point man, the lynchpin, the three-point-shooter, the goal kicker, whatever metaphor you like, but a three-point-shooter without a team to support them always loses. They can't win the match all by themselves; they can't even succeed at their shots all by themselves, even though they are the direct cause.

Being a spectator 3/4 of the time isn't exactly my notion of a good gaming experience. Especially in a game allegedly about cooperation and teamwork.

You're only ever a spectator if you proactively choose to be a spectator.

Not being optimal at something is no excuse not to stick your oar in anyway and give it a go. If it's a diplomacy scene and my Cha-6 boor of a War Cleric is present, it's damn sure I'll get him involved somehow - even if doing so might not be in the party's best interests. If it's a mass melee and my flimsy little Illusionist finds herself fighting a couple of Orcs she's going to fight them even if her combat skills are only slightly better than those of a kitten. If it's an exploration scene and I'm the clanky tank who can't perceive the nose on his own face I'm still going to stick that nose into unexplored dark corners.

The problem is that "effective spells" negates all three of those things, and "most other physically-strenuous activity" is essentially a non-entity in D&D rules in the absence of any formal structure beyond "make some skill checks I guess." Shield addresses the first; fireball addresses the second; and at least seven ultra-traditional spells, which in 5e can be cast as rituals (or are cantrips), address the third, e.g.:

• prestidigitation ("daily care and feeding" type tasks)
• alarm (no need to keep watch)
• find familiar (scouting, surveying, communicating)
• Tenser's floating disk (hauling and carry weight)
• unseen servant (chores of all descriptions; being Strength 2 just means they might take longer)
• Leomund's tiny hut (shelter, protection from the elements)
• phantom steed (overland travel of all sorts)
• water breathing (water as any meaningful form of terrain obstacle)

None of which require a spell slot to be cast, and most of them can be easily slotted into any Wizard's automatic spells without issue. Don't bother suggesting that Wizards lose their ability to choose what spells they get--it's simply a non-starter, even for me, and you know I'm not keen on things that increase caster power.

Two things here.

1 - ritual casting, along with any other casting that doesn't use slots, needs to die in a fire never to be reborn.
2 - some of the spells you list are already known to be broken in 5e (e.g. LTH) and-or have had their balancing risks from prior editions removed (e.g. Find Familiar).

And yes, I'll still go ahead and suggest spells shouldn't be chooseable at level-up.

 

[Lanefan]

Why? A fighter is just a name for the martial defender in 4e. Why does it matter if you can't make a fighter into a leader when the warlord is the martial leader and covers the same thematic ground that a fighter leader would?

Because if the Fighter can do it then there's no need for a Warlord class.

Benefits all round.

 

[Aldarc]

Because if the Fighter can do it then there's no need for a Warlord class.

Benefits all round.

I would much prefer seeing each archetype done well rather than seeing one class trying to accomplish too much and stretch all the archetype concepts too thin like butter scrapped over too much bread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is really my fault for using 4E parlance to make a general point. I dont think I can explain to you any longer at this point.

If you can't explain it to someone who disagrees with you, is that a reflection on the person disagreeing, or on the idea that legitimately cannot be communicated? Because I'm inclined to say the latter.

IDK, why dont all the fighters suck folks take this advice?

What advice? I'm not asking to be a Wizard. I'm asking to be a Fighter that is actually good and effective without using magic. YOU'RE the one who keeps saying that the one and only possible way I could ever be happy is to be a spellcaster. I don't want that! I don't WANT to be a spellcaster. I want to be someone who never--not even once!--casts a spell, and yet gets to contribute as much to the party's success as the spellcasters do.

I mean, follow the tactical role prescribed by your class or fail could be seen as coming to your own decisions I suppose...

Where is this "fail" coming from? I said that it tells you something which is effective. That doesn't mean literally everything else is ineffective. That's an assumption you inserted into it.

Was not my experience.

Which part, exactly?

I think you are taking this too personal. The once an hour BS was designed to tell all of us to shut up.

I genuinely thought this was a serious comment, not a joke. Still not sure what's supposed to be humorous here.

You're only ever a spectator if you proactively choose to be a spectator.

Yes, because someone else being better in every way at fixing the group's problems definitely means we should be having BMX Bandit solve them instead while Angel Summoner takes a coffee break.

Not being optimal at something is no excuse not to stick your oar in anyway and give it a go. If it's a diplomacy scene and my Cha-6 boor of a War Cleric is present, it's damn sure I'll get him involved somehow - even if doing so might not be in the party's best interests.

"Do things that actively hinder your party" is not a great selling point.

If it's a mass melee and my flimsy little Illusionist finds herself fighting a couple of Orcs she's going to fight them even if her combat skills are only slightly better than those of a kitten. If it's an exploration scene and I'm the clanky tank who can't perceive the nose on his own face I'm still going to stick that nose into unexplored dark corners.

Ditto. You're not selling me on the concept here. If anything, you're making it sound worse.

Two things here.

1 - ritual casting, along with any other casting that doesn't use slots, needs to die in a fire never to be reborn.
2 - some of the spells you list are already known to be broken in 5e (e.g. LTH) and-or have had their balancing risks from prior editions removed (e.g. Find Familiar).

And yes, I'll still go ahead and suggest spells shouldn't be chooseable at level-up.

None of these three points will ever happen. They are simply unpopular with players--and always will be, because that's literally the whole point. These are player-frustration features--what I have been calling "tedium"--used to gate power. But players can, and will, optimize the fun out of games. They will do the tedious in order to get the power. Consistently. You've got a long history of playing the game; surely you have seen this firsthand, many a time even.

I would much prefer seeing each archetype done well rather than seeing one class trying to accomplish too much and stretch all the archetype concepts too thin like butter scrapped over too much bread.

Exactly. There is, of course, a concern for diminishing returns; sometimes it really is best to express multiple archetypes under the same umbrella. Neither of us is saying that there should be anything like, say, four dozen classes. But trying to shoehorn 17 different things into one universal basket is a losing move. Most of them will fail to actually capture the spirit of the thing, for exactly the reason that the Eldritch Knight fails to capture what being a Wizard should be.