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

[pemerton]

Outside of the great wizards, there are no clear "mages" at all in the world of Middle Earth. Lord of the Rings doesn't have spells.

<snip>

Ultimately, trying to apply D&D logic about classes and magic to anything non-D&D is just silly. Aragorn doesn't have a class. LotR was written decades before the idea of class was even invented.

Furthermore, assuming that he would need to multiclass in order to have healing abilities means that you are already presupposing D&D assumptions about magic and class organization, rather than looking at what is actually going on.

<snip>

most traditional D&D definitions of such, are lousy. No construction of religion in D&D is remotely based on real world religion and beliefs

<snip>

the point of those tree-running scenes. Those are just there to demonstrate the ability and skill of the characters. The implication is that they are just that good.

Why does magic need to be codified into spells? The answer is that it doesn't, that is just an arbitrary choice D&D made at the beginning. There is no necessary reason for magic to quantized into spells where each spell has a particular effect.

In fact, real world magical traditions don't really work like that.

This is all great stuff. I've come very close to trying to run a magic=spells and only spells game (using Rolemaster), and it imposes very significant limits on the fantasy fiction that can be supported, and for very little payoff in play other than a certain sort of aesthetic of systematisation.

One mechanic that Burning Wheel uses is "natural magic": dwarves, elves and orcs can learn skills that are just like everyone else's skills, except that they get to roll open-ended dice (ie when a die comes up max, add another die to the pool).

In 4e, elves and halflings both have reroll abilities - elves for themselves (they're accurate) and halflings for their enemies (they're lucky). Is this skill or magic? The mechanics don't say, and don't need to say. When dealing with these fey(-ish) folk, there is no need to draw the distinction.

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.

The idea that everything corresponds to real-world physics except when magic intervenes is completely ludicrous in the context of D&D, though. D&D worlds involve giants, dragons, beholders, undead, divine intervention, and multiple alternate planes of existence which are readily accessible. How can you possibly say that the rules of reality in a D&D world compare to ones in our world?

There is no requirement to fall back on the laws of physics at all. Ultimately, game rules are not a physics system, they are merely a means of adjudicating player actions.

I'm with SKyOdin here. It's obvious that real world physics is not a constraint on even the mundane in the D&D world (giant insects, actual giants, dragons and the like). And narrating the activity of the game, and adjudicating actions as part of that narration, doesn't rely on real world physics. It relies on whatever common sense intuitions are shard by those around the table. (The last time I pulled out a reference book to adjudicate a physics-type question in game was 10 or so years ago, to determine the flight speed of a goose in the context of a polymorph spell - and I learned what I had suspected, that flight speeds listed for birds in RPG rules are too slow, and simply there for reasons of mechanical balance or convenience.)

High level fighters can become non-magically tough the same way that a hill giant is non-magically tough. There is no biological process that can explain that, because hill giants are biologically impossible. But luckily, game play can take place even in the absence of biological explanations! Just as we suspend disbelief on the hill giant for genre reasons, we can do the same for the fighter.

Recently in my 4e game, the 16th level dwarven fighter-cleric helped in the reforging of his dwarven thrower artefact. The furnace was hot, and thrumming with magical energy, and the dwarven artisans could not take hold of the hammer with their tongs. The PC ended up resolving the problem by shoving his hands into the forge and holding the hammer still while the artisans grabbed hold of it. (Mechanically, a Hard Endurance check to complete a 4 successes before 3 failures skill challenge.)

I don't want this sort of action - which was spontaneously narrated by the player of the PC, and easily resolved mechanically - buried under a pile of operational spellcasting rules.

Something that needs to be said about myths. They are very, very inconsistent.

They often have a weird sort of dream logic.

Yes. Over the past 15 years I've been trying to get more of this into my game, with at least some success.

 

[Remathilis]

Mythic fighters work just fine in the context of historical and medieval society. Heck, they appear in much of the stories and cultural awareness of real-world medieval societies. A mighty warrior-king who can chop hills in half has less problematic story influence than a wizard who can make magic items.

:spit take:

Ok, leaving the geography aside, let me give you my idea of what a "high level" (10+) fighter should be doing...

Adaption: The fighter is so comfortable with fighting in foreign terrain he no longer takes disadvantage from fighting underwater, on horseback, on a thrashing ship, hanging from ropes, or on top of a runaway waterwheel careening toward the ocean. All of these things are like solid ground to him.

All Around Attack: Cleave on Steroids. Did you down a foe? Good, take a free swipe at EVERYONE standing around you.

Bravery: Who says paladin's are the only ones who are fearless? Immune to frightened, gives a bonus to saves for others in sight.

Breech Immunity: Foe immune to a certain weapon? To you, he's merely resistant. So go ahead a kill that skeleton with arrows...

Death Blow: Make one single attack against a foe of lower level/HD than you. You kill him outright if you hit; Con save applies.

Frighten: You intimidate by a glance, giving foes disadvantage until they land a hit on you.

Hardiness: Shrug off those non-damaging spell effects like charm, hold, and even death spells for a number of rounds.

Inner Focus: The fighter can temporarily buff one of his physical scores to 20, but for only a few rounds before fatigue sets in.

Sense Danger: Skill Mastery: Perception for fighters and immune to surprise.

Status Attack: Your attacks can leave a foe blinded, deafened, stunned, paralyzed, or bleeding for a while (rounds, until healed, etc).

THAT is stuff a high level fighter should be doing to be a bad-ass without throwing mountains at people.

The vast majority of this stuff was adapted from DMO: High Level Campaigns for 2nd Edition. Much better than the Epic Level Handbook. Swim up a waterfall...

 

[SKyOdin]

:spit take:

Ok, leaving the geography aside, let me give you my idea of what a "high level" (10+) fighter should be doing...

Most of those examples should be the kind of stuff fighters should be doing from the outset at level 1, or at least slowly learning as they approach level 5. Those abilities represent the bare minimum amount of combat strength fighters need in order to function against the myriad monsters and spell-casters they will fight. Those kinds of abilities there represent the bread and butter of what every fighter needs.

A high level fighter should have considerably greater power.

Furthermore, those abilities only help the combat side of things. Fighters still need to achieve parity to wizards' non-combat narrative power. If wizards can teleport the party and re-shape stone, what can fighters do to contribute as well?

 

[Underman]

It's obvious that real world physics is not a constraint on even the mundane in the D&D world (giant insects, actual giants, dragons and the like). And narrating the activity of the game, and adjudicating actions as part of that narration, doesn't rely on real world physics. It relies on whatever common sense intuitions are shard by those around the table.
<snip>
High level fighters can become non-magically tough the same way that a hill giant is non-magically tough. There is no biological process that can explain that, because hill giants are biologically impossible. But luckily, game play can take place even in the absence of biological explanations! Just as we suspend disbelief on the hill giant for genre reasons, we can do the same for the fighter.

That's all fine. Except that nobody is trying very hard to suspend my disbelief.

The prevailing argument seems to be something along the lines of "it's fantasy so anything is possible" (which is so open-ended as to be useless to me) or "I'm inspired by a character in a dream logic myth" (which is irrelevant to me). None of these attempt to suspend disbelief within the context of the actual fantasy story. So how are "common sense intuitions" allowed to come into play?

I also don't like the reasoning that hill giants are biologically impossible, therefore real world physics are not a constraint. On a intuitive level, there's nothing wrong with fantasizing that bigger = stronger, and that hill giants are okay because dinosaurs are even bigger and for real. Even comic books, some of the most ludicrous literature of all time, attempts to suspend disbelief by making the Hulk big and gamma-radiated to justify his strength or emphasizing that Thor is a god with a magic hammer. If comic books were mythic, they wouldn't even bother to come up with ludicrous gamma-radiation and spider bite origin stories, but people clearly crave justification -- they want an excuse to buy into it, a license to believe.

Verisimilitude is the easiest available license to believe, that's all I'm saying. Throw me a bone if your fighter wants more than that (which doesn't include sketchy comparisons to real-life myths or anime when D&D isn't an anime or mythological game and never was).

 

[pemerton]

That's all fine. Except that nobody is trying very hard to suspend my disbelief.

The prevailing argument seems to be something along the lines of "it's fantasy so anything is possible" (which is so open-ended as to be useless to me) or "I'm inspired by a character in a dream logic myth" (which is irrelevant to me). None of these attempt to suspend disbelief within the context of the actual fantasy story.

<snip>

On a intuitive level, there's nothing wrong with fantasizing that bigger = stronger, and that hill giants are okay because dinosaurs are even bigger and for real. Even comic books, some of the most ludicrous literature of all time, attempts to suspend disbelief by making the Hulk big and gamma-radiated to justify his strength or emphasizing that Thor is a god with a magic hammer. If comic books were mythic, they wouldn't even bother to come up with ludicrous gamma-radiation and spider bite origin stories, but people clearly crave justification -- they want an excuse to buy into it, a license to believe.

I think I'm missing something.

Of course comics provide pseudo-scientific explanations. They're set on earth. These characters hang out in NYC, study at university, are frequently great scientists themselves! You're being asked to imagine these heroes as possible within the modern, scientific world view.

But D&D doesn't happen on earth. It happens in some other, magical land in which pixies and elementals and ghosts all are real, in which there are gods and primordials who created the universe, and people who commune with them and draw power from them. We don't have to reconcile it with a scientific world view - it's expressly an enchanted place in which the mystical and the supernatural are ubiquitous.

That is the explanation for fighters being tough. They're tough for the same reason that vampire's have 18/76 STR (or whatever it is), and for the same reason that elves and halflings in the woods are invisible 90% of the time - that's their nature in this fantastic world! (We don't ask about the structure of a fighter's muscles under medical investigation anymore than we ask about the skin pigmentation of an elf or halfling.)

Throw me a bone if your fighter wants more than that (which doesn't include sketchy comparisons to real-life myths or anime when D&D isn't an anime or mythological game and never was).

I won't bite on the anime, which I don't know well enough (but isn't the Mighy Servant of Leuk-O a mecha?).

But as for myth - where did Gygax get the idea the elves, halflings, brownies, leprechauns etc are invisible in the woods? That Medusa will petrify you with her gaze? That powerful wizards can trap your soul? That channelers of divine power can turn sticks into snakes and part the waters of a sea? That genies can grant wishes when freed from entrapment?

The game is imbued with the tropes of mythology, of fairytale, and of a range of religious texts.

It's true that it's also imbued with the tropes of reference works on historical arms and armour and fighting techniques (cf the famous polearm weapons list and Appendix T). How to reconcile those two sets of tropes is what this thread seems to have become about.

 

[Neonchameleon]

:spit take:

Ok, leaving the geography aside, let me give you my idea of what a "high level" (10+) fighter should be doing...

Adaption: The fighter is so comfortable with fighting in foreign terrain he no longer takes disadvantage from fighting underwater, on horseback, on a thrashing ship, hanging from ropes, or on top of a runaway waterwheel careening toward the ocean. All of these things are like solid ground to him.

All Around Attack: Cleave on Steroids. Did you down a foe? Good, take a free swipe at EVERYONE standing around you.

Bravery: Who says paladin's are the only ones who are fearless? Immune to frightened, gives a bonus to saves for others in sight.

Breech Immunity: Foe immune to a certain weapon? To you, he's merely resistant. So go ahead a kill that skeleton with arrows...

Death Blow: Make one single attack against a foe of lower level/HD than you. You kill him outright if you hit; Con save applies.

Frighten: You intimidate by a glance, giving foes disadvantage until they land a hit on you.

Hardiness: Shrug off those non-damaging spell effects like charm, hold, and even death spells for a number of rounds.

Inner Focus: The fighter can temporarily buff one of his physical scores to 20, but for only a few rounds before fatigue sets in.

Sense Danger: Skill Mastery: Perception for fighters and immune to surprise.

Status Attack: Your attacks can leave a foe blinded, deafened, stunned, paralyzed, or bleeding for a while (rounds, until healed, etc).

THAT is stuff a high level fighter should be doing to be a bad-ass without throwing mountains at people.

The vast majority of this stuff was adapted from DMO: High Level Campaigns for 2nd Edition. Much better than the Epic Level Handbook. Swim up a waterfall...

You know I read that list for "high level fighters" and then I look at the wizards. Give a fighter every single ability on that list by the time they hit level 6 in addition to their current normal abilities and I'd still say they had significantly less influence on combat than a 3.X 7th level specialist conjurer. (For a 1e post UA fighter the wizard might need fifth level spells).

And other than the perception issue (and arguably the stat buff) there's literally nothing you've listed they can do out of combat.

That's all fine. Except that nobody is trying very hard to suspend my disbelief.

The prevailing argument seems to be something along the lines of "it's fantasy so anything is possible"

No. The prevailing argument is that to function as a fighter they absolutely and emphatically must have these abilities. If they do not get them then there is no viable fighter class. (Or at least there is - but it's not a front liner. It's the instant killer who's as squishy as the wizard but makes the 2e high strength and dex dart-specialist look like a beginner).

Either the fighter must have these abilities or the level cap on the fighter should be obvious rather than subtle. You need to say that "There are no mundane fighters of level higher than 6". It's a simple choice between no fighter and a supernaturally empowered one. At least unless you want gatling-dart-throwers to be the order of the day.

How they got them is almost academic. In over half or all hulk stories the Gamma Radiation is irrelevant and if anything makes things less believable rather than more. It's a figleaf not an attempt to justify.

Verisimilitude is the easiest available license to believe, that's all I'm saying. Throw me a bone if your fighter wants more than that (which doesn't include sketchy comparisons to real-life myths or anime when D&D isn't an anime or mythological game and never was).

And we're talking past each other. Why is the idea "Every high level fighter must justify strength and toughness in their background - but it need not be the same for every fighter" a problem? Why must all fighters have the same power source?

And if the fighter doesn't get this then the fighter doesn't get a full length class (or you cap everyone, as was done in 4e). It's as simple as that. Do you want the fighter to be a viable class?

 

[Zustiur]

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."

This is pretty well in line with what I'm thinking, except I'd stretch it out over 30 levels rather than 20.

Magic rarely works like that. It's very often an innate gift as well as a matter of secret knowledge, and it's not something you buy and upgrade and keep in a hanger. Magic isn't too consistent at all, in genre, actually. Sometimes powerful magic can be sensed half a world away. Sometimes a wizard's magic rests in an amulet or staff or somesuch, sometimes it's a matter of knowledge, sometimes it's in his blood or soul or even gallbladder (really). Similarly, a warrior in a fantasy story may have tremendous strength or other physical talent, or a legendary bloodline, or divine or fey ancestry, or be chosen by the gods or fate, or simply have greater courage and will and thus try, and do, things lesser men simply can't.

So, no, your metaphor doesn't hold, at all. Besides, if magic were simply a skill, and defeating a flying, firebreathing intelligent dinosaur with little more than a particularly long sharp stick was simply a skill, you wouldn't have mages and heroes, you'd have arcane technicians and dragon exterminators.

I dispute that. Wizards in all editions of DND that I have books for (2, 3, 4) gain their access to magic through intense study. There is no mention of the knowledge being secret (which wouldn't invalidate my point anyway), nor of being inherent (in the blood etc). Beyond wizards, yes, some races (and later, sorcerers) gain their magic through inherent means. Very few if any of those races are 'natural' by the game's logic. Beholders for example are an aberration, not a natural creature.
Besides, what does the word 'wizard' mean if it does not mean 'arcane technician'?

As long as the casters are on the same track: doing subtle magic and rituals at low levels, and saving the crazy stuff for later.

I have no problem with this in theory. Exact detail would take a lot of thrashing out though. One person's crazy is another's subtle.

Why can't modern fans of D&D just do the same thing with the stuff they find cool? That is ultimately the heart of D&D: an awesome hodgepodge of a hundred random influences brought in by generation after generation of fans.

My answer to that is "Because D&D has become it's own entity. It is no longer a hodgepodge of random influences, its sole influence is itself. If we throw in new random things, we would turn it into a different fantasy role-playing game. A lot of people will disagree with me on this, but I want D&D to remain as D&D.

A lot of the things people want make me think, "Yes, that would make a good game, but I don't want that in my game." The oft suggested vitality points being just one example. Yes it might better represent what D&D claims to represent within hitpoints, but switching mechanics would take me out of D&D mode.

But D&D doesn't happen on earth.

True, but the worlds are generally considered to be earth-like in a lot of ways.

To me (and it seems a lot of other players), D&D has always been set in a world which starts out like Earth, but then has a very long list of exceptions. If you don't have an exception for a given situation, real-world rules apply. i.e. everything is normal until otherwise specified. This is why there is a distinction between 'animals' and 'beasts'. If D&D didn't assume an earthlike starting point, griffons would just be animals.

It is for this very reason that fighters (particularly human fighters) are thought of as highly trained medieval soldiers. We expect them to do the things that soldiers can do. We don't expect them to move mountains or cut the top off a hill. If a human fighter is to go beyond what a human fighter can do in 3E, we expect an explanation for it. At this late stage any attempt to give fighters something beyond believable martial abilities is going to face an uphill battle.

To give a little context: In Diablo 3, barbarians can summon ancient heroes to aid in battle. I don't blink an eye at this because that fits with Diablo's story and feel. If barbarians suddenly started doing the same thing in D&D I'd cry foul regardless of what level the power became available. D&D isn't a generic fantasy RPG. It's D&D. It has baggage.

 

[Underman]

Of course comics provide pseudo-scientific explanations. They're set on earth. These characters hang out in NYC, study at university, are frequently great scientists themselves! You're being asked to imagine these heroes as possible within the modern, scientific world view.

I'm not sure. Thor and Odin are in Marvel comics, and Thor uses an actual magic hammer, and comics don't provide a pseudo-scientific explanation for Mjolnir's magic to reconcile with a "modern, scientific world view". I really think people just want an explanation of some sort, even if it's a figleaf as Neonchameleon puts it. I'm not claiming they're good explanations, but comic book readers seem to go for it.

But D&D doesn't happen on earth. It happens in some other, magical land in which pixies and elementals and ghosts all are real, in which there are gods and primordials who created the universe, and people who commune with them and draw power from them. We don't have to reconcile it with a scientific world view - it's expressly an enchanted place in which the mystical and the supernatural are ubiquitous.

That is the explanation for fighters being tough.

Sure, and we don't need to argue this, I don't think. Fighters have always been tough and strong in D&D. But how tough? What are the limitations? What is the baseline? At what point is suspensions of disbelief stretched so much that it's good to come up with justifications. This isn't an either-or problem.

The game is imbued with the tropes of mythology, of fairytale, and of a range of religious texts.

It's true that it's also imbued with the tropes of reference works on historical arms and armour and fighting techniques (cf the famous polearm weapons list and Appendix T). How to reconcile those two sets of tropes is what this thread seems to have become about.

Personally, I like to reconcile the tropes that are more-or-less consistent with each other, and toss out the inconsistent parts (ie,. the stuff that is too mythic, and the historical references that are too realistic).

How they got them is almost academic.

My whole point is that it's not academic to me and a whole lot of other people, sorry, gotta agree to disagree on this one.

How they got them is almost academic. In over half or all hulk stories the Gamma Radiation is irrelevant and if anything makes things less believable rather than more. It's a figleaf not an attempt to justify.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I've referenced the hulk only to point out reader's desire to have license to believe; I'm not arguing the merits of the gamma radiation justification. I'm sure that backstory is more thought out than half of the justifications players use every day at their gaming tables. D&D is absolute rife with "fig leafs". If you don't allow fig leaves and want only the most compelling plausible justifications, you either have to completely reboot D&D or accept it as a purely incoherent irrational surreal experience.

And we're talking past each other. Why is the idea "Every high level fighter must justify strength and toughness in their background - but it need not be the same for every fighter" a problem? Why must all fighters have the same power source?

I don't know, I haven't thought about that, and haven't addressed that specific issue one way or another in any of my posts.

 

[pemerton]

This is why there is a distinction between 'animals' and 'beasts'.

This distinction exists in 3E. It's not a part of B/X D&D nor 4e, and I don't think it's part of 1st ed AD&D either.

 

[Imaro]

My question is... how on earth are wizards and fighters any different here?

Magic...

In your example alone, you say that wizards are justified in doing anything and everything they want because they study and train to do such things. Yet studying and training is not sufficient as justification for letting a fighter do what ever he wants? This doesn't make any sense. Not only to both classes have an equal amount of justification, they have the exact same justification. Both classes acquire skills through training and study. In fact, because of the way the 3E and 4E experience chart works, it could be said that the two classes both involve the exact same amounts of training and study.

You are misinterpreting what I said. I am saying D&D has established within each and every one of it's editions and campaign worlds since it's inception that magic allows one to do things that exceed the baseline of mundane in it's world(s). The Wizard is able to manipulate magic through spells... this again has been established in every edition and every campaign world. It's not study, and training that allow a wizard to do what he does... it's magic and spells and this is very weel established in the game. Now what has been established within the games or campaign worlds that alllow fighters to do the same type of things wizards do?

The only justification for wizards is a hollow "they're magic! wooo" <insert wiggling fingers>. D&D has never even justified the idea of magic or put it into a logical metaphysical context. After all, creating such a context would necessarily weaken wizards, and it seems that is unacceptable to fans... Really though, any attempt to actually justify wizards and magic would result in them being weaker than they are now, because they only enjoy their 3E levels of stupidly outrageous power exactly because magic doesn't have any systematization or in-fiction justification.

Magic itself doesn't have to be explained, in fact in most fantasy literature... what exactly magic is isn't explained or is purposefully left murky. What's important to those stories and D&D is the establishmtn of a way to manipulate and control magic. D&D has this. Magic is manipulated through spells... spells are learned by wizards... wizards memorize spells... a wizard's intelligence determines the number of spells he knows and the number he can cast (in certain editions)... that seems like a justification to me...

You could make the argument that magic doesn't need such a justification, but then we're right back to the point of it being a double standard that physical abilities require justification but spellcasting doesn't.

This argument just doesn't hold water.

Again, it seems you are confusing a justification for how one uses magic... memorization and casting of spells with a justification and definition of what magic is. They are two different things and like I said the justification and definition of what magic is is very rarely explained in fantasy overall.

Because we want it to mimic those sources.

Is that not good enough for you? It's plenty good enough for me.

It's not about what's "good enough for me"... you're ignoring the fact that the game was NEVER created to exactly mimic those sources. I can certainly understand people wanting a fighter that is more powerful and versatile... hell, I even gave my own suggestions for it... but I don't see it as necessary that the classes power and versatility increase be based around mythology when there are other sources. As an example... In a straight up fight... Elric would probably kill Hercules (YeahI know this sounds like one of those playground arguments but bare with me for a sec.) not because he's a mythological hallf-god who can slice mountains in half... but because of the vampiric sentient sword he wields and the drugs coursing through his veins. I guess I just find their are other inspirations outside of mythology for bad ass fighters and I'm not sure if D&D shouldn't, like the wizard, come up with it's own take on it as opposed to apeing a specific source.