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

[Remathilis]

So wizards in D&D can just use magic with no restrictions or processes or limitations... is that what you are claiming??

D&D does have an edition where magic missile is at will, ya know?

 

[Imaro]

Likewise.



And I don't know how many ways it can be explained - it's simple. Spells cannot provide a 'how and why'.

This is wrong as I've demonstrated earlier. They provide both the how and why wizards can manipulate magic.

Spells simply assert that magic exists and can be manipulated. They only tell you 'what happens'. They never, ever explain how or why. The only 'why' which justifies magic is 'because the rulebook says so'. And the rulebook can say anything.

I"M NOT JUSTIFYING MAGIC... I've said this numerous times and you keep ignoring it. I AM JUSTFYING THE HOW AND WHY A WIZARD CAN MANIPULATE MAGIC. Just as I am asking for a how and why the fighter is able to do these things as they are clearly outside the base norm of the D&D world... this reason should also justify why any schmoe can't do what the fighter does... otherwise tons of people have will and courage... they should be slicing mountains too.

So the rulebook can say this:
Once a day a fighter can, through force of will and courage, leap 500ft.
Once a day a mage can cast 'the spell' fireball.

You are ignoring the rules for memeorization of a spell, learning a spell, etc. These all create a paradigm to define how a wizard is able to manipulate magic. That is what I am asking for with the fighter. The same way a Cleric has spells but a different explanation (paradigm) of how and why he can in turn use magic.

If you ask me how it's physically possible for a fighter to leap 500 feet, first you must tell me how it's physically possible for someone concentrating and chanting and waving their hands about to incinerate a room full of goblins.

No, again this is trying to define the power... I want the paradigm through which the power can be used. Why can't any person do what the fighter does then??

If you don't feel the need to explain that (which you clearly don't since you state 'magic can't be explained') then there's no need to explain heroism or courage (It's heroism and courage. It can't be explained.)

I'm not asking for an explanation of heroism and courage. I'm asking, in the game, what are the processes for using it??

Holding one class to a higher standard of 'proof' or 'plausibility' than another is exactly the double standards being expressed in this thread.

I'm not. the Wizard cannot cast a spell he does not know... the wizard cannot cast a spell he does not have memorized... the wizard eventually cannot cast anymore spells... these are just some of rules that define why and how a wizard can manipulate magic... The fighter just does basically says... he should be able to do anything all the time.

 

[Imaro]

D&D does have an edition where magic missile is at will, ya know?

They still have to learn and memorize the spell...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I read it - but surely this design outline (I almost wrote "madness" but thought that might be too harsh) is just to make a point?!

Nope. It is partially to make a point about consistency and the nature of the double standard, but I knew when I wrote it that some people wouldn't have any trouble with it, at least as an option to consider. You even hit some of the background in the same reply:

What CJ says here strike me as obviously correct, but I think Patryn is right about the difficulties of selling it. In edition to the points that Patryn makes, there are the frequently-stated objections to wishlists, to magic items being necessary at all, etc. Plus the objections to the pre-release suggestion that, in 4e, only high level characters could benefit from magic rings.

People can reconcile the higher level fighter as mundane by putting appropriate limits on casters. Or they can reconcile not having those limits on casters by finding a way to give the higher level fighter something mythic. There are, of course, multiple ways to limits casters and multiple ways to give fighters something mythic. Some of these ways will be more acceptable than others, and this will vary by playstyle. Options here would be good.

Most of what I have said in this topic is relevant to that point. Double standards like this exists because they are "polite fictions" that people tell themselves to make incompatible things somehow acceptable. That's why there is such resistance and double-speak and shifting grounds and pleas to "verisimilitude" as if "verismilitude" was some objective, set thing instead of a concept ... as if someone kept talking about "music is X," and it became apparent after awhile that the speaker meant "jazz" when they said "music". The only way a group of people can go around thinking "music" and "jazz" are synonyms is by creating one of those "polite fictions" in their society, and then treating it as somehow gauche or plebian or unsophisticated to question it.

I'm not even opposed to such "polite fictions" in gaming groups or within slightly larger communities. They are a powerful, yet flexible tool for making a game run smoothly, especially when everyone at a given table is comfortable with it. Our group uses them that way, and for that reason. I am very much opposed to (often unconscious) assumptions of "polite fictions" in discussions of game design, because all they do is stagnate the discussions along already trod ground. Not least of all, they make it difficult to consciously nuture the polite fictions via the design. It's a bit like the problem of what happens when people start believing their own propaganda (though seldom as nasty in result, given the subject matter).

Edit: I will cop to a certain amount of sarcasm in that post, though.

 

[Fifth Element]

So wizards in D&D can just use magic with no restrictions or processes or limitations... is that what you are claiming??

No, but if spells are all you need to allow wizards to do whatever because it's magic, then just give fighters something, maybe call them "exploits" or something, to explain how they do mythic things.

 

[Remathilis]

So the rulebook can say this:
Once a day a fighter can, through force of will and courage, leap 500ft.
Once a day a mage can cast 'the spell' fireball.

If you ask me how it's physically possible for a fighter to leap 500 feet, first you must tell me how it's physically possible for someone concentrating and chanting and waving their hands about to incinerate a room full of goblins.

Its not. That IS the point.

Lets define "magic" as something that breaks the known rules of nature (a dangerous claim since we don't know all the rules. Lets pretend for a moment that our understanding of physics and chemistry are sound, if not complete).

The fighter represents the natural world as we know it. Since nobody in our mundane world jumps 500 ft, neither does he. He can still do some amazing things (fall off mountains and live, survive multiple stabbings) but in the end he is locked into a world of doing only what real people can do in this world.

The wizard represents the supernatural world. Its a world of Ghosts and Gods, where it is possible to make fire without tinder, be in two places at once, read minds, communicate with the dead, and move things with the power of thought. He CAN precisely because his job it to represent those things we cannot do. He defines the negative; everything we cannot do, he can.

The problem lies that the fighter's natural world is bounded; he can only do what we know we can do. The wizard's is boundless: we can imagine a lot more things we cannot do than things we can. Ergo, the wizard can do a lot more things than a fighter because there are a lot more things we can't do than we can do according to the natural world.

Does that make good, balanced, and fun gaming? Jury's out on that one.

The problem is for balance to creep in, we need to blend those two worlds. The fighter has to gain supernatural elements (things we cannot do) and the wizard needs start being constrained by the natural ones (or at the very least pay a stiffer cost for breaking them). Some people are fine with the idea fighters gaining a bit of the wizard's "beyond mortal ability" shtick, while others would prefer he remain bound by our natural world laws. A similar but opposite argument already was fought about magic (just Google search the phrase "4e magic isn't magical).

Call it divine favor, heroic spirit or gamma radiation, if it breaks the laws of nature, its magic.

 

[Imaro]

No, but if spells are all you need to allow wizards to do whatever because it's magic, then just give fighters something, maybe call them "exploits" or something, to explain how they do mythic things.

Again, how do they gain these exploits? What is the limiting factor for these exploits? Why can't others perform these exploits... and so on. The spell system for wizards in D&D answers all these questions. What are the answers for fighters?

 

[Umbran]

Lets define "magic" as something that breaks the known rules of nature (a dangerous claim since we don't know all the rules. Lets pretend for a moment that our understanding of physics and chemistry are sound, if not complete).

...

The problem lies that the fighter's natural world is bounded; he can only do what we know we can do. The wizard's is boundless: we can imagine a lot more things we cannot do than things we can. Ergo, the wizard can do a lot more things than a fighter because there are a lot more things we can't do than we can do according to the natural world.

Here's the thing, though - in real world myth, legend, and practice, magic is generally bounded. Each magical tradition has rules. It has strengths and weaknesses. It has mechanics that limit its functioning.

We, in the gaming community, tend to take "magic" to equate to "can to *anything*". But traditionally in human cultures, that's not the case. Magic can give you access to abilities non-magicians don't have, but there are still limits on what the magician can do. And, generally speaking, there's a price to be paid - typically a price that the magician cannot simply get around by using magic.

We, in the gaming community, perhaps should instead think in terms of "magic can do anything, in general, but any particular magician will be in some way bounded." You get something far more flavorful this way.

Does that make good, balanced, and fun gaming? Jury's out on that one.

Pick good and interesting limits on the magical practice, and it can. Fail to do so, and you'll usually fail to be fun for those who aren't the magician.

 

[Neonchameleon]

EDIT: As to your point about the different types of magic... I agree, but they all still have a keyword that identifies them as a particular type of "magic" powers. Something like feystep doesn't... IMO that speaks to inconsistency and/or the fact that it is not magical.

To me it speaks to the idea that "Magical" isn't by itself a meaningful category. Arcane spells are. Divine prayers are. "Magic" itself isn't. It's just the way the fantasy world works.

Dude, I don't know how many times I can repeat this... spells explain how and why a wizard can use magic to do things... as well as the effects he can use magic for.

Given the answer to "the effects he can use magic for" at high level, that seems to be anything. And as Umbran says above, this is not an interesting limit for anyone else.

Tell me one wizard is limited to illusions. Another one to evocation. (Together they can create a nastily convincing dragon). Make the wizard's limits actually genuinely meaningful. They barely were in 1e. And then 2e folded the Illusionist into the wizard, and 3.0 broke any semblance of control on them - which 3.5 failed to pay more than lip service to correcting. (OK, so they hit haste and a few others - that's just getting the worst symptoms.)

"Can cast spells" is not a limitation. Can cast spells is an excuse to be able to do anything. "Can cast illusion spells" is a meaningful limitation.

Strongly disagree. I'd rather wizard magic be spread out more (flight at 10th level, teleport near 16, stone shape around 7th) than force fighters to throw mountains and leap over oceans.

Why do you want to deny gonzo players their fun? I'd rather restrict gonzo mountain-throwers to epic. But that doesn't mean I want to push them out entirely.

I didn't put any of the non-combat skills on the list since a.) I wasn't sure where the line between fighter and warlord is drawn and b.) It didn't seem relevant to mountain tossing. However, since you asked, a high level fighter should be able to impress the peasants and nobles alike with tales of his prowess, intimidate lesser foes into backing down with a glance, goad foes into making simple mistakes, size up opponents to determine strengths and weaknesses, grant bonuses to allies though example and advice, and lead impressive armies, drawn to his cause by both coin and reputation.

You mean he's about equal to a low level bard with a reputation?

Scaling wizards back a bit would be grand, however there is an awful lot of excluded middle between what D&D fighters normally do and throwing mountains/leaping over oceans.

Perhaps the discussion would be more production if we could move away from these super-extreme examples and provide examples of what people think mythic fighters should be able to do in D&D. I'm sure some want to be able to cut a mountain in half, but they're probably in the minority.

My rule of thumb would start with the following based on the two archetypes:

1. The fighter should be a strong and tough juggernaut who is nearly unstoppable just as the wizard is tricksy and versatile.
2. If a fighter and a wizard have an arena duel the duel should be over if the fighter catches up with the wizard. No significant need to roll.
3. A wizard should not be able to one-shot a fighter of equal level in any way, shape, or form. (This doesn't mean no save-or-dies necessarily - a wizard vs wizard arena duel can quite happily end in SoD - the fighter's going to one shot the wizard anyway).

Then we get to level scaling.

1. If the wizard is five levels higher the fighter shouldn't stand a chance unless the wizard screws up or gets incredibly unlucky. The wizard can stay out of reach (e.g. flight + invisibility) and can quite probably throw a successful save or lose at the fighter.
2. If the fighter is five levels higher, the wizard shouldn't stand a chance unless the fighter screws up or gets tricked by something beyond the caster's power (e.g. tricked into running off a cliff or into a portal the wizard couldn't himself create).
3. If the fighter and wizard are of equal level the fighter should have a chance to overcome the wizard's defences before the wizard can trap him.

Point 1 of the head to head matches should be obvious.

Point 2 means that if the wizard gets Expeditious Retreat at level 1, the fighter should be able to run him down anyway at level 6. If the wizard gets invisibility at level 3, the fighter should be able to hear him at level 8. If the wizard can fly at level 5, the fighter should be able to take a flying leap at level 10 and knock him out of the air. If the wizard can drop a wall of stone in the way at level 7, the fighter should be able to smash it and keep moving at level 12.

Outmatched by 5 levels either way should be brown underwear time.

Point 3 is subtler. If the wizard can create a pit trap under the fighter with a standard action the fighter of the same level should be able to scramble out of a pit trap that deep with a standard action. If the wizard can cast a wall of force, the fighter should have a chance to be able to leap a wall that high. Remember that the wizard doesn't want to cast a pure offensive spell - the fighter will survive it and then get a free shot at the wizard (which means the wizard loses). In order to win the wizard has to either (a) wear the fighter down without making a mistake (and yes, he has enough spells to do this) or (b) use the environment - tricking the fighter under an overhang and then using a wall to seal him in for instance - or maneuvering him back the wrong side of a wall the wizard created earlier so you get some actual attack spells in unanswered.



So yes, I want the fighter to be supernatural. It's the whole archetype - incredibly strong and tough that no one can stop. Human-only and can still hang with the big boys should be the rogue. Trickery and cunning to box above your weight. Not brute strength to wrestle a dragon.

 

[Fifth Element]

Again, how do they gain these exploits? What is the limiting factor for these exploits? Why can't others perform these exploits...

1. By studying and learning how.

2. Some arbitrary limit placed by the game system, such as a number of times per day.

3. Because they haven't learned how.

Just like the wizard.