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

[Tony Vargas]

The fundamental question here is 'what is a fighter?' But I'll focus on a different question first:
"What should a fighter be able to do?"

This is really a very simple question with a very simple answer: As a PC class, a fighter should be viable along side other classes of the same level, and able to contribute meaningfully to the party's success in whatever sorts of challenges the DM decides to put in the party's way.

Of course, that's the same answer as for all classes. The only question is how do you get the fighter there given the concept. And that gets back to the 'what is a fighter' question - but, it gives you a helpful parameter for answering that question: if it can't result in a viable PC, it's not an acceptable answer.

Is that a 'gamist' reason? Well, sure, in the sense that D&D is a game, and games need to be reasonably fair and engaging to all players.

There really seems to be two sides to this argument; those who want the fighter to remain mortal, albeit highly trained, and those who want him to transcend the abilities of mortal man. I can easily accept wizards bending the rules of physics, because they're utilizing an imaginary force (magic) to do so.

And there's the double standard, again. You accept the wizard as a character in a fantasy world, a world not subject to the 'realistic' laws of our world, yet you refuse to accept that the fighter is in the same world, and also subject to the same laws as the wizard, not the laws of our world.

 

[Lanefan]

Damn good question! In some cases, you could fluff it as the wielder being just that good (e.g., the vorpal effect).

More fighters (both party and opposition) having occasional vorpal effects would certainly go a long way toward solving combat grind...

Lan-"off with 'is 'ead!"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Is that a 'gamist' reason? Well, sure, in the sense that D&D is a game, and games need to be reasonably fair and engaging to all players.

And here it gets into the murky waters of just what various players find engaging in the game. Me, I'm happy if my fighter has a sword and a chance to swing it to kill things now and then; I can pretty much do without all the feats and powers and whatnot that I usually just forget anyway, and I'll otherwise dive in to the story as it seems fitting - just because I'm a "dumb fighter" doesn't mean I have nothing to say.

I leave the world-bending stuff up to the wizard as long as she leaves the face-bending stuff up to me.

And there's the double standard, again. You accept the wizard as a character in a fantasy world, a world not subject to the 'realistic' laws of our world, yet you refuse to accept that the fighter is in the same world, and also subject to the same laws as the wizard, not the laws of our world.

Absolutely.

A wizard needs magic to bend the world. A fighter doesn't need magic to bend your nose into your face - though it can certainly help.

The wizard - and the cleric, for all that - take the realistic physics of our world and twist them sideways. I'm cool with that. But it doesn't mean everyone has to be able to do such things; most people are grounded in reality, and that includes low-mid level fighters.

Lan-"rolled up in 1984 and a fighter ever since"-efan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Tovec:
Don't get them started, please, I've been having that fight for over a week

Sounds like someone needs to fling a mountain...

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not getting the distinction here... you want them to have the type of powers that are common in anime and myth... which according to your description of my weapons and armor idea would also just be a different form of magic. The only difference is that I'm giving a fictional justification for their "magical" powers and you're not.

That's not the difference

I'm purposely not giving a fictional justification. This is because the fictional abilities tend to be fairly similar across epic myths, legends, and high powered stories. But the fictional justification differs from legend to legend and story to story. What I'd do in the rulebook is say that "To play this class above this level you are literally superhumanly strong and tough and should give a reason for it in your background. Example reasons are..."

But there doesn't need to be one single justification to be superhumanly strong, tough, and fast, and at even higher levels with effects extrapolated way beyond the realms of common sense. You just need a source of power - whether you're a living natural channel for the ambient magical energy of the universe, a demigod, or even a literal avatar of war, or just trained in Secret Special Techniques doesn't matter. You're going to be able to do absurd things with your strength and weapons and do them in ways that are pretty consistent across a range of stories through different myths and cultures.

And your definition as far as I know matches up with no known myths, legends, or stories. It means that someone who wants to play Conan, Hercules, or Lancelot can't. What they end up playing is a "D&D Fighter" rather than what they consider a fighter to be.

And you've ignored the fact that non-superhuman, martial protagonists did exist in some of the literature D&D was based upon. I'm not arguing anything else, so I'm not sure what the rest of this post is addressing... because I never claimed it's sources had no mythic or supernatural martial protagonists just that it also had some that weren't.

I don't think anyone's ignoring that. What I am arguing is that
1: Most of them are pretty low level where this is not an issue
2: The high level ones aren't fighters. They are rogues. Cunning, trickery, and not being there in the first place. See Batman in the JLA or The Black Widow in the Avengers movie. Both are non-superhuman (although push the limits). And neither one of them is ever going to go toe to toe with the things the fighters fight.

Damn good question! In some cases, you could fluff it as the wielder being just that good (e.g., the vorpal effect). In others, it's because the wielder's broad experience with magic weapons has clued him into a few tricks ("Look - an icesword is just a firesword turned in on itself, right? So all you do is kinda convince the magic to ...").

The first case is good. But I believe you have it backwards. It's not that fighters replicate the vorpal effect - it's vorpal trying to do what fighters do. In the second I really don't get why the wizard and artificer can't both do this better than the fighter - they after all know both the theory and the practice. It just seems like random toe-stepping to me that cuts against both archetypes.

 

[Underman]

Great warriors of old have imbued their spirt into their weapons--sometimes consciously at death because of great magic (presumably performed by some Merlin-type character), in other cases due to accident, long-life with the weapon, ambient magic, a god's connection, etc.

So then when our present day fighter picks up that quasi-artifact flamebrand of Geoff the Mad, it is merely a flamebrand at first, albeit one with a latent intelligence and will. Use it awhile, this starts to affect the fighter. Instead of the typical early D&D struggle with intelligent swords, this is more benign as far as "controlling" the fighter directly, but more pervasive and lasting, too. After awhile, our fighter starts to absorb some of the personality of Geoff, along with his abilities. Let it go on long enough, and both "stick" even with the sword gone. (This would be a narrow but noticable change in personality, not a complete rewrite. Most of the original is still there, only changed by long association with the spirit.)

Yes, I wonder if it's worth differentiating that Geoff is a supernatural weapon, instead of a magic weapon.

Also, I think magic in magic weapons and armor could be organic and malleable at critical periods, and still comply with fantasy tropes.

Say an arcane ironsmith forges a magic blade. Freshly made and yielding, anyone can theoretically wled this brand new magic weapon at first. The first owner turns out to be a half-elf fighter. Over time, the magic sword attunes itself to the wielder (much like goslings that are imprinted to the mother goose after hatching). This doesn't imply any actual sentience or intelligence in the weapon; it's just a process. The magic in the sword becomes harmonized to a certain pattern of combat use, an absence of other magic auras, perhaps a trace of elven blood. Centuries later, a band of adventurers find the weapon in a dungeon. An elven or half-elven fighter may find the sword most accomodating. A cleric, druid or wizard in the party may find that the sword feels unbalanced or slightly wrong, because the sword's magic is thrown off by the magic aura/vibrations of a spellcaster.

Some magic weapons might even actively protest, like Thor's hammer which can't be lifted by the unworthy, or Excalibur of course.

In that way, you have some fluff to justify why some weapons/armor are best used by certain metagame categories of PCs. You could fictionally justify why a villian's exceptional weapon is not useable to its full potential by the PCs.

A magic sword created for and wielded by a spellcaster could be rare and valuable indeed.

 

[billd91]

And there's the double standard, again. You accept the wizard as a character in a fantasy world, a world not subject to the 'realistic' laws of our world, yet you refuse to accept that the fighter is in the same world, and also subject to the same laws as the wizard, not the laws of our world.

Think of it, and other elements of design for a fantasy world in D&D, as exception-based design. The baseline is pseudo-history normal. Magic forms the primary basis for exception. Characters, even wizards, are subject to a common impression of reality in general, save where mainly magic justifies the exceptions.

 

[Zustiur]

And there's the double standard, again. You accept the wizard as a character in a fantasy world, a world not subject to the 'realistic' laws of our world, yet you refuse to accept that the fighter is in the same world, and also subject to the same laws as the wizard, not the laws of our world.

As Lanefan already pointed out, having wizards bend real world rules doesn't mean fighters should do the same.
Let's take a metaphoric comparison:
In the real world, there are pilots, and people who are not pilots. Pilots can fly planes. Non-pilots cannot fly planes. Non-pilots, can if they wish, spend years learning to be a pilot. At which point the non-pilot becomes a pilots and can fly planes.

Now take that same fact, but switch the words back to DND:
In the DND world, there are spellcasterss, and people who are not spellcasters. Spellcasters can cast magic. Non-spellcasters cannot cast magic. Non-spellcasters, can if they wish, multiclass to be a spellcaster. At which point the non-spellcaster becomes a spellcaster and can cast magic.

It's not a double standard. It's a perfectly logical separation of skills. I can become as good as you like at dancing, but that doesn't mean I'll be able to fly a plane. No amount of dancing experience will teach me to fly a plane. Not even if my best mate is a pilot, nor if I spend years flying around the world to perform.

Being a fighter and being a wizard are totally separate skills. Living in the world of magic does not mean you will gain any ability to use magic. Living in a world of planes does not mean you gain the ability to fly planes.

But there doesn't need to be one single justification to be superhumanly strong, tough, and fast, and at even higher levels with effects extrapolated way beyond the realms of common sense. You just need a source of power

Now that is a very good point.


The more we thrash out this topic, the more convinced I am that I have no problem with fighters going beyond the mundane, so long as this happens at a sufficiently high level that I can enjoy my non magical fighters in the style of lower level gritty campaigns I prefer. I'm fine with the mythical stuff being in the rules, so long as it doesn't creep in too early. Using 4E tiers, I'd be fine with it turning up in Epic, but I'd like to keep it to a minimum in Paragon, and completely absent in Heroic.

 

[RangerWickett]

Let's stretch your metaphor some more.

You're a wizard/pilot. You can't fly unless you have magic/a plane. If you only have access to low-level magic/a Cesna, you aren't going to be flying Mach 3, but eventually you might get more powerful. Flying, then, is a skill, which relies on magical energy/technology to function.

I'm a fighter/Navy SEAL. I can punch people just fine, but if I want to kill a dragon/helicopter, I need supernaturally-enhanced strength/a rocket launcher. Fighting is a skill, but at high level I need magical energy/technology to face other high level challenges.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'd like fighters to work like this:

5 levels of "you're an adventurer who's got some extra skill that lets you survive a bit better."

5 levels of "you're a heroic guy who isn't afraid of normally dangerous stuff, but who can't go beyond the limits of human ability."

5 levels of "you're a paragon of human talent, and can occasionally perform superhuman feats -- perhaps because you attained enlightenment in a monastery, awakened your divine heritage, formed a pact with a supernatural entity, or are buoyed by the devotion of an entire nation."

And then 5 levels of "you possess mythical powers and casually do things that normal people would find magical."

Now, some people might prefer a more granular progression, but if wizards get sleep at 1st level, fireball at 5th, teleport at 9th, and meteor swarm at 17th, well, the fighter needs to be able to keep up.

If you want a game with "I'm just a dude" fighters, then keep it under level 10, and maybe limit spellcasters to only having one non-instantaneous spell active at a time.