D&D 5E The Door, Player Expectations, and why 5e can't unify the fanbase.

[Neonchameleon]

Tell the dragon (who has wiped out all your hirelings and dogs in one breath) that, and he shall chuckle.

Why were we getting that close to the dragon?

Now add the typical constitution bonus, and yes, you probably end up with three times the hit points.

Do you treat Method V of stat generation from Unearthed Arcana as normal then? Because that's the only way I can see this assertion being valid.

In AD&D for a fighter Strength is the most important attribute IME. For a Wizard it's Intelligence. Dex and Con are probably next for both (especially for the wizard as it's their non-casting attack stat).

And you get no bonus hit points for Con of 14 or lower. Using 4d6-Lowest, the chance of a given roll getting 15 or more is 23.2% (3d6 it's 9.3%). And a 15 dex won't help a wizard significantly (-1 AC) but will give them a 40% boost in hit points. On the other hand -1AC helps the fighter and gives a less than 20% boost in hit points. So the wizard is more likely to, if they have a second stat of 15, allocate it to Con than the fighter is. (Almost half of all rolls of 15 or higher are 15).

So by random generation in any sort of order the wizard is as likely to gain bonus hit points as the fighter. With optimisation the wizard is more likely to gain bonus hit points than the fighter (except under Method V from Unearthed Arcana) - it is simply more useful to the wizard. And unless the fighter is lucky enough to have a 17 or 18 in Con (which, as mentioned, is not their primary stat) the wizard gains a much bigger proportional bonus to hit points. (With both having an 18 con, the wizard still gains a higher proportional bonus to hit points even if the fighter gains more hit points). There is literally no official method of generating ability scores that means that the fighter gains disproportionate hit points over the wizard other than Unearthed Arcana Method V. (The only exception is that the "in order" stat generation where your only exceptional scores are con (or con and cha) might default to fighter).

And even using the pregens listed, the fighters have only approximately twice the average hit point bonus - which is not even enough to keep them up to the bonus from hit dice size.

Also I'm amazed about the escalating hit points for fighters example in 3.X. I thought everyone wanted enhancement bonusses to Con. And the squishies get a disproportionate bonus out of them. 2 hit points/level proportionally helps a wizard far more than a fighter. And there aren't that many other ways to gain hp.

 

[pemerton]

This is basically replacing the PC fighter with NPC fighters. I'd call that a wash.

If a PC can be replaced, in play, by an NPC without any signficant change to the dynamics of play, I wouldn't call that a wash. That says something pretty signficant about the contribution made to the game by the replaced PC, doesn't it?

 

[billd91]

If a PC can be replaced, in play, by an NPC without any signficant change to the dynamics of play, I wouldn't call that a wash. That says something pretty signficant about the contribution made to the game by the replaced PC, doesn't it?

I would say no. The group role is still being filled by someone, hence it's still perceived as necessary. It's just that nobody chose to fill that role personally. I've had player groups do this for clerics and rogues before too. Usually, I have too many players who like to play wizards for them to fill that niche with an NPC henchman, but it did happen once.

 

[Zustiur]

My figures weren't supposed to be the point of this debate. Call it 2.5 times. It doesn't matter. The fact remains that the wizard has significantly less hp than the fighter, and will therefore require the presence of 'tanks', whether that be PC fighters or NPC fighters.

We were discussing story expectations, not the maths of HP. I therefore repeat:

Traditional party of 4
1 Fighter
1 Thief
1 Wizard
1 Cleric

They've been adventuring long enough to be 'down on resources' but not completely out. They have 1/4 HP, and about 1/4 of their spells available. The monsters have trapped them and taken them prisoner rather than kill them at this particular moment. All equipment has been removed. Each character is locked in a separate prison cell.

Assuming an edition without the imbalance between classes and where it is feasibly possible to run out of spells.
What would each of the characters do to escape at low level?
What would each of the characters do to escape at high level?

If you give a different answer to those two questions, then tell me WHY it should be different.


For my own part, I want the fighter's actions to remain the same. The rogues actions to remain the same. The wizards actions go to from 'I basically can't escape' to 'I can escape, but I'm going to have to find the others very quickly'. The cleric meanwhile should probably find it hard to escape, but at least be safe in the knowledge that he's got more HP remaining (by using up his remaining spells on healing).

*side note; If a wizard has no equipment, he can't memorize new spells, so resting isn't going to help much. The cleric should be faced with a similar problem in theory, but no edition so far imposes that. I'd like to hear ideas on how and why a cleric might face the same sort of problem.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is basically replacing the PC fighter with NPC fighters. I'd call that a wash.

Not really. There's a significant difference between finding a tough on a street corner, waving gold in his face, and sticking him in plate armour, or buying a couple of burly slaves from the market and sticking them in plate armour (actual examples by my group) and looking for someone who has spent years apprenticed to a wizard.

In the fighter replacement's case, their main job is to stand there. It's to be somewhere rather than to actively do something.

Because the wizard can't use it.

Why not?

Besides, hammer of disintegration was supposed to be an over-the-top example. Call it a longsword +5 if you find that easier.

And that's getting through an adamantium door?

Why? That depends on how you want the story to work doesn't it? For me, fighters are non-magical men who do what they do very well. They might gain magical allies, and magical equipment, but they're still mundane at the core. Take away the allies and the equipment, why on earth should they be able to do anything beyond the mundane? He's a MAN. He hasn't ascended, he hasn't become an outsider, he can't cast spells. Why should he be capable of something that is impossible in the real world?

Because dragons can fly? And would give people in the real world third degree burns? Also because the fighter is meant to be the toughest member of the party. You've already got hit points...

The core problem is that if you're limiting fighters like that then what they can do becomes irrelevant with fourth level spells. I don't care if you are an olympic high and long jumper. Fly and levitate beat you. (You can just about limit rogues like that but that's another story).

I wasn't assuming any given edition's mechanics. I was talking about the kind of stories I want to be able to tell. Imagine a system where spell casting still works on the Vancian paradigm, but the wizard never has more than 20 spells in total. Would you still think it impossible for him to run out?

I'd think it very unlikely. Gandalf had what? Six? For the whole of Lord of the Rings. 13th Age caps out at I think 12 spells for an epic hero and at least one of those will be At Will.

We've never considered hirelings, so I'll concede that point. Regarding the hit points, my 'three times' came from the fighter being more likely to have a constitution bonus. 9*d4 = 22.5 9*d10+1 = 58.5, or close to 3 times as much.

And I dispute that the fighter is much more likely to have a constitution bonus - and his constitution bonus is going to be a lower proportion of his hit points than that of the wizard if they both have one.

They've been adventuring long enough to be 'down on resources' but not completely out. They have 1/4 HP, and about 1/4 of their spells available. The monsters have trapped them and taken them prisoner rather than kill them at this particular moment. All equipment has been removed. Each character is locked in a separate prison cell.

Assuming an edition without the imbalance between classes and where it is feasibly possible to run out of spells.
What would each of the characters do to escape at low level?
What would each of the characters do to escape at high level?

1: That is an extremely edge case and railroad-captures are considered poor design for a reason.

2: The Cleric's laughing. He waits for dawn and meditates and suddenly has a full loadout of spells. He then blasts the door off its hinges.

The rogue might be able to pick the lock for himself and everyone else depending on the no-tools penalty.

The fighter, if mundane, is stuffed. He can't batter down the door. He can't break the bars - he's not as strong as the ogres the cell was designed for. He can't pick the lock. And he can't magic his way out. He needs to wait for someone to open his cell door and put a weapon in his hand. (Or he can improvise - but so can everyone else.) Of course I believe that a high level fighter should be able to plait the bars of the cell then use them as an improvised spear and lever. But you don't.

The high level wizard is fine. Hes uses his contingency spell to teleport out, sleeps the night, studys up, and comes back for everyone. A low level wizard depends whether he has a useful spell prepared like Charm Person (1st), Disguise Self (1st), Knock (2nd).

If you give a different answer to those two questions, then tell me WHY it should be different.

Because if you have what the wizard can do to alter reality changing at high level then to be balanced the fighter needs to change qualitatively too.

For my own part, I want the fighter's actions to remain the same. The rogues actions to remain the same. The wizards actions go to from 'I basically can't escape' to 'I can escape, but I'm going to have to find the others very quickly'.

Or 'I can escape and put a few hundred miles between me and this, rest up, and come back tomorrow knowing almost exactly what I'm facing'.

*side note; If a wizard has no equipment, he can't memorize new spells, so resting isn't going to help much. The cleric should be faced with a similar problem in theory, but no edition so far imposes that. I'd like to hear ideas on how and why a cleric might face the same sort of problem.

I'd impose it. But then I don't believe in D&D style overnight recovery as being a good thing. In my current game you only heal surges at an extended rest - which is a few days in a (relatively) safe town. Where the cleric can pray three times a day and fast (or have a dionysian orgy depending on the God). And the wizard can spend a day or two setting up lab apparatus or communing with the infinite.

Complaining that Vancian spellcasting is bad because 3e gave wizards too many spells is not a great argument.

3.X is the most extreme example. But literally every edition of D&D gave wizards too many spells. 1e soft-caps (level 10) at about the time it starts getting silly. 2e gave an extra spell per spell level above the 1e level. And 3e gave a spell per spell level beyond that (2 at low level if you try).

 

[Tony Vargas]

For me, fighters are non-magical men who do what they do very well. ... He's a MAN. He hasn't ascended, he hasn't become an outsider, he can't cast spells. Why should he be capable of something that is impossible in the real world?

Perhaps because he is neither in nor of the real world.

So, again, we face the pervasive double-standard that has calcified around martial archetypes in D&D. While classic D&D took inspiration for magical abilities from every conceivable source, from myth and legend, to literature, to fantasy and science-fiction film and TV, and made them into spells that could be cast and items that could (eventually) be made, martial archetypes were made super-humanly durable, deadly, and lucky, but not given much along the lines of detailed extraordinary abilities drawn from the same sources as magic was. The community from fairly early on, ran in that direction, limiting characters without magic to fairly strict RL-realism, and leaving the door open for magic to do just anything. The inherent mechanical imbalances in the game itself much surely have encouraged this, and the two fed on eachother.

Each edition has /tried/ to do something for mundane PC, the Fighter, particularly: AD&D gave the fighter percentile strength and a track to becoming a fuedal lord. 2e made fighters into insanely high-damage TWF or Bow double-specialists with sheer number of attacks and damage bonuses going completely over the top. 3e gave the fighter more than double the feats of any other class, giving it great customizeability. But, all the big numbers of AD&D 1&2e did was make the fighter effective in his boring routine of hitting whatever was in front of him until it died, and all the 'specialization' of 2e and feats of 3.x accomplished was to take what the fighter could do, cut it up into player-chosen pieces, and make him /bad/ at whatever he didn't choose.

4e also tried to 'fix' the fighter, but it started by 'fixing' eveyone else, too. It put classes on a common advancement scheme, which gave a firm foundation for balance. With exploits to match spells, fighters had some of the agency, versatility and peak power that casters had. But, it still suffered from pigeon-holing the fighter and giving casters much greater flexibility. The 4e fighter was balanced, and it was an excellent defender, but it was stuck in a melee-only box, and it's powers revolved around endless variations of hitting/pushing enemies and shuffling around. While it mixed things up and made the class a lot more interesting, it never approached the in-combat versatility of caster classes, which broader range of attack-types/range, damage types, utilities and the like. And, the fighter was still left sadly lacking in the skills department, with little to do out of combat.

5e could continue to try to improve upon the fighter, making him more contributing and balanced out of combat, more customizeable (in the sense of being able to do choose to do a bit /more/ than just the base-line combat stuff, not in the sense of being able to become a one-trick pony by 'specializing'), and more engaging with greater agency.

Obviously, the 5e playtest fighter was just a placeholder, but, as it's the only solid thing we have to go on, at this point, 5e has failed the fighter utterly.

I'm considering a system where you lose low level slots as you gain high level slots. You can always chose to memorize a low level spell in a higher level slot, but your total number of spells is going to be reduced.

I keep thinking this is what the designers are planning to do with 5e, but they haven't come right out and said it, and I'm not sure the crowd who rejected 4e will accept it.

I wasn't assuming any given edition's mechanics. I was talking about the kind of stories I want to be able to tell. Imagine a system where spell casting still works on the Vancian paradigm, but the wizard never has more than 20 spells in total. Would you still think it impossible for him to run out?

That still a lotta spells - best what the absolute greatest magicians of Jack Vance's Dying Earth could memorize. In the Dying Earth, there were also only about 100 spells in existence for magicians to uncover.

Assuming an edition without the imbalance between classes and where it is feasibly possible to run out of spells.
What would each of the characters do to escape at low level?
What would each of the characters do to escape at high level?

4e gives capture scenarios as a possible Skill Challenge. Details would be up to the DM. Capture scenarios have /never/ worked well in D&D, though, and 4e is no different in that regard.

 

[Lanefan]

2: The Cleric's laughing. He waits for dawn and meditates and suddenly has a full loadout of spells. He then blasts the door off its hinges.

I assume you're talking high-ish level 3e, as I can't think offhand of a Cleric spell that blasts doors in 1e. That said, Clerics get Planeshift as a 5th level spell and that'll get 'em all out of there...

The fighter, if mundane, is stuffed. He can't batter down the door. He can't break the bars - he's not as strong as the ogres the cell was designed for.

Here's where you need the 1e "bend bars-lift gates" mechanic - the Fighter would have a one-shot chance, albeit a small one, of forcing his way out by sheer brute strength regardless of class level. It ain't much but it's better than nothing.

But, all the big numbers of AD&D 1&2e did was make the fighter effective in his boring routine of hitting whatever was in front of him until it died ...

Must be different play preferences, but I've been playing Fighters for a very long time and hitting things until they die has never been boring.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Must be different play preferences, but I've been playing Fighters for a very long time and hitting things until they die has never been boring.

There's no accounting for taste, of course. There's a certain thrill to a high-damage character, but for me it palls very quickly. That's my unaccountable taste.

In general though, especially if 5e is going to appeal to a diverse set of fans, every class will need options, real options that are meaningful/balanced/viable, and not all just at chargen/level-up (leaving no meaningful choices in-play) or all just in-play (no customization).

 

[jrowland]

...

Each edition has /tried/ to do something for mundane PC, the Fighter, particularly: AD&D gave the fighter percentile strength and a track to becoming a fuedal lord. 2e made fighters into insanely high-damage TWF or Bow double-specialists with sheer number of attacks and damage bonuses going completely over the top. 3e gave the fighter more than double the feats of any other class, giving it great customizeability. But, all the big numbers of AD&D 1&2e did was make the fighter effective in his boring routine of hitting whatever was in front of him until it died, and all the 'specialization' of 2e and feats of 3.x accomplished was to take what the fighter could do, cut it up into player-chosen pieces, and make him /bad/ at whatever he didn't choose.

...

I think there is a certain amount of room for fighters to have non-mundane abilities, but where to draw the line is a point of debate. I for one think a "Shout" (to borrow an MMO term) is an extra-ordinary ability that might be acceptable to most. But then you move into crazy leaps and jumps with a big, pavement splitting thunk and finally into the super-ordinary where arrows bounce of the S painted on his chest...you've probably lost some people.

To keep with the D&D trope, even though its failed fighters, is to move the design space a bit further. Either with extra- or super- ordinary abilities (ie 4E) or expand the ordinary into a broader, more interesting space.

Unfortunately, there lies the rub with 5E: A more robust "ordinary" fighter is one where combat options are more interesting...for the designers this is "complexity" they want to avoid but the fighters NEED more complexity to be interesting. Maybe not every thrust, parry and riposte, but pretty close.

The fighter, pre-4e, is pretty bland in combat. 4E opened up more options, but the fighter no longer occupied a unique space (everyone in 4e cast "spells", eg).

I think the base combat rules NEED more complexity in 5E. Most of the combat options should be the bailiwick of the fighter: Parries, Blocks, Dodges, Trip, Grapple, Sunder, etc and not "universal". That is, those things are "assumed" in the abstract nature of D&D, and so a cleric in melee with a wizard might be as bland as 5E currently is, with the assumption that those options are part of the combat and just represented as a single roll to hit. BUT, for the fighter, when he "sunders" or "blocks", it is much more significant, represented by maneuvers only the fighter can do.

(caveat: those options could be taken by rogue, cleric, wizard, but would be sub-optimal...why learn "block" when you have the shield spell?)

in short, the problem with 5E fighters isn't the fighter, its the combat system they are supposed to "play" in.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmmm... there is a lot of categorizing in the op...

my 2 cent:

I don´t get, why bounded accuracy limits the martial type character. It limits wizards. They won´t be able to open simple doors by just kicking them in just because they are level 20...

they can spend spells to open the doors. The fighter on the other hand has improved its strength. (And here speculation begins...) He may have spend feats and skill slots to improve his breaking power, he may also has some utilities like fighter´s surge, that allows him to do feats of strength once in a while.

Please, bounded accuracy just means: no automatic, unified level advancement for accuracy. Which does not mean that individual classes get boosts once in a while...