D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Umbran]

I don't see how what I'm doing is saying what peoples experiences are or will be at all.

Quoting your OP, emphasis mine:

"An ability you will get, even at a level you will never reach, affects the current play experience. You know that at some point you WILL have a particular ability."

If you said, "An ability I will get..." you'd be speaking of your own experience.

But, every time "you" appears, the reader is being told what their experience would be without exception. There is no space in this phrasing for alternatives - it is presented as an absolute. That may not be what you meant, but it is what is present in the sentence you wrote.

There are other constructions that can do similar things without telling the reader what will happen to them, and without the (unsupported) implication that this is a universal experience:

"For some/many folks, an ability they will get, even at a level they will never reach, can affect the current play experience." That is vague, and still unsupported, but the reader can at least take it that they aren't part of the "some/many".

 

[haakon1]

It’s fun to talk about D&D. For me, it slightly diminishes the D&D jones when I don’t feel like firing up BG3 or working on my campaign. And sometimes I read something interesting or useful. (Thanks, Umbran, for the you v. I advice.)

But if we’re stating personal opinions, I gotta agree with Payn - I’m tired of 5e balance threads. And I gotta agree with Reynard, sometimes people DO want to play the Fighter. As a Fighter, doing Fighter stuff. It is (was?) the most popular class.

My DM opinion on balance is: I don’t care about balance. If a player isn’t enjoying the game, that’s a problem, but class’s balance has never been a reason I’ve seen. In many campaigns, people can fairly easily change characters. It’s not something I suggest, but I have had players do it … twice? … in 37 years of GMing (29 years of DMing). If players are having fun, why does someone else’s opinion of which class is better matter AT ALL?

To me, D&D is not just a fantasy combat game. It’s about role playing. Making “suboptimal for DPS” choices is fine. Players playing what they want to play does no one harm. Bart’s monk who had an Int 18 and piled down on Knowledge skills in 3e was an awesome character. He was “char op” for what Bart wanted to play, not for getting cool spells.

And on the rare times I’m a player, I try not to be a glory hog. Cleric or bard helpers are often what I enjoy these days.

I watched CBS Sunday Morning this morning and they did a piece and “Sidemen”, like Billy Joel’s saxophonist, a Broadway understudy, and an MLB backup catcher. Those folks are awesome pros at what they do - even though they don’t have “balance” with the stars they backup.

Backup catcher, middle reliever, and utility player (aka Bard!) are awesome roles if a player wants to play them - not everyone is going for MVP, in D&D or sports.

 

[Lanefan]

A cleric isn't a village priest. A rogue isn't a common pickpocket. A wizard isn't a local scribe. A fighter shouldn't be a town guard of infantryman. Mundanity is for NPCs.

Agreed but only after the characters get to high levels.

Before that, they ARE those mundane people at the core, just with increasingly more going for them as their levels advance.

Otherwise you're playing supers; and that ain't what I want form D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

I got the idea after seeing a few people arguing strongly against unrealistic abilities at a high level because they see martial characters as, like, action heroes from Die Hard and whatever. But yes it's quite fuzzy this whole thing.

I agree with allowing casters this flexibility is a problem. It would, however, still be an issue even if their spells were fixed per level. It would just be more limited in scope. Instead of knowing that "you could pick Fireball" you would know that "you would get Haste"

Agreed. The answer, of course, is that the spell you learn is random. If using training rules, this is explained as being the spell your trainer decided to teach you as an example of what you can cast at that level.

It's not strictly about planning out the character in its entirety. The idea is that the character exists in your mind and it obviously can as long as you have familiarity with the system. You don't need to build your character up to level 17 to know that a wizard at that level will have high level spells.

I just don't assume my character will live that long, in part because I expect a fair amount of lethality in the game. Once it gets to high enough level that I can be more assured it'll stick around, much of that development phase has already passed by.

I'd prefer a solution whereby casters are nerfed somewhat and martials are buffed.

I'd like to see casting be the high-risk high-reward unreliable option while fighting is the lower-risk lower-reward but much more reliable option.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why not tone down the casters instead?

Because every time you do, they riot.

 

[jgsugden]

...Would someone who could do all of those be supernatural in our world? In the 616/MCU/DC? (Feels like yes and no respectfully to me).

A game world where people can go a bit beyond our worlds human limits in several things and still be mundane feels great to me. I wish there was a nice supplement detailing some of those records (typical trained hobbies, typical Olympic equivalent competitor, world record holder - and how risky they were)...

I think it comes down to the suspension of disbelief. And, in D&D, we accept a lot. A dragon the size of a small mansion breaths a gout of flame hot enough to melt a castle wall that is up to 90 feet wide and a rogue is standing in the center of it, without cover, and without any protection. And takes no damage after making that Evasion enhanced saving throw. I had a group claim they wanted to play a 'real world' game where their PCs would be treated as if they were real people in a fantasy setting. The first time they all took damage from an area spell I told them their injuries were debilitating. In reality, it doesn't take much to render a human incapable of exertion.

Still not like reliably casting wish.

Why would it be? A.) Wish isn't reliable - the best part of it dies on you at a random time. B.) That isn't what the fighter does. However, I had a fighter solo an Ancient Red. 550 damage before the beast ever did anything. I agree the fighter could use some non-combat abilities to flesh them out better. However, they do what they do quite well.

 

[Lanefan]

Because every time you do, they riot.

Fair enough, but that still ain't a reason not to do it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fair enough, but that still ain't a reason not to do it.

But that way—and I am not at all being facetious—lies 4e.

That's literally what a third of the complaints about 4e's design center on. That Wizards weren't allowed to be magic anymore...even though they only lost the absolute highest and most broken spells (like wish), with most utility magic becoming rituals which cost time and money and skill rolls rather than fire and forget spell slots instantly regained with a good night's sleep.

When you force Wizards to have to actually care about time constraints and costs, when you make it so they actually have to be picky about which utility spells they acquire and can only deploy a few a day without sinking actual gold into their power...they riot. And they're very good at the spin game. It's why Wizards have only grown in power and versatility in every other edition. Even 5e! They added Concentration...and then made Wizards the most flexible, adaptive version they'd ever been, with the ability to recharge slots to boot! Took away spell level cheese, but then gave auto-scaling reusable cantrips. Allegedly reduced the power of spells....only to grandfather in all the big exceptions.

If you can find a way to poke a hole in their armor, please, I'm all ears. I would love to live in a world where caster-fans aren't the ones dictating the terms for what D&D is allowed to be. Sadly, I have never seen such a world, and I'm not hopeful I ever will.

 

[Lanefan]

But that way—and I am not at all being facetious—lies 4e.

That's literally what a third of the complaints about 4e's design center on. That Wizards weren't allowed to be magic anymore...even though they only lost the absolute highest and most broken spells (like wish), with most utility magic becoming rituals which cost time and money and skill rolls rather than fire and forget spell slots instantly regained with a good night's sleep.

Interesting, in that my solutions would go in almost opposite directions than 4e went.

When you force Wizards to have to actually care about time constraints and costs, when you make it so they actually have to be picky about which utility spells they acquire and can only deploy a few a day without sinking actual gold into their power...they riot.

I'm not that cool with having to spend gold each time a spell is cast, with a few key exceptions. But I do want spells to be hard to cast (i.e. easy to interrupt) and have some risk attached e.g. you can sometimes mis-aim them badly enough to hit your allies (or yourself!), teleport can occasionally put you in solid rock, polymorph risks killing the recipient outright, and so forth.

And they're very good at the spin game. It's why Wizards have only grown in power and versatility in every other edition. Even 5e! They added Concentration...and then made Wizards the most flexible, adaptive version they'd ever been, with the ability to recharge slots to boot! Took away spell level cheese, but then gave auto-scaling reusable cantrips. Allegedly reduced the power of spells....only to grandfather in all the big exceptions.

If you can find a way to poke a hole in their armor, please, I'm all ears. I would love to live in a world where caster-fans aren't the ones dictating the terms for what D&D is allowed to be. Sadly, I have never seen such a world, and I'm not hopeful I ever will.

Instead of putting any effort into poking holes in their armour I'll just mostly ignore them and carry on my merry way, while suggesting the game designers do the same.

That my suggestion will likely be lost in the background noise ain't my problem.

 

[Minigiant]

This is the thing I was thinking.

Just design a subclass.

I think the reason why we don't see this answer work is

1. WOTC designing overtly magical subclasses for martials exclusively after XGTE
2. 3PP designing overtly magical subclasses for martials almost exclusively
3. DMs not allowing players to design their own subclasses

So the desired subclass doesn't ever get allowed.