What is the essence of D&D

[Zardnaar]

Primacy of magic... it takes a mage to kill a mage.

I've seen fighters kill mages in 1 round.
I've seen one solo a marilith, mature dragon and lich one after the other in 3 rounds.

Can't do that in 4E.

 

[Garthanos]

I've seen fighters kill mages in 1 round.

I only recall pretty paltry damage from a fighter my 9th level fighter I think had 3 attacks in 2 rounds rounds 1d8+4 per? He was I think a 17 strength with a +3 weapon. Shrug i am struggling to remember the numbers after over 30 years so meh.

 

[Zardnaar]

I only recall pretty paltry damage from a fighter my 9th level fighter I think had 3 attacks in 2 rounds rounds 1d8+4 per? He was I think a 17 strength with a +3 weapon. Shrug i am struggling to remember the numbers after over 30 years so meh.

This one was level 14 or so weapon specialist dual wielder, longswords, 7/2 base attacks. 18/00 strength, 2E frostbrand and some other blade I forget.

 

[Garthanos]

Any way fighters being not really being adequate in combat issues such as they were seem to have been mostly resolved in the here and now ( though from what I can 4th edition was the first to really do that.) 3e according to Tony if you optimized like hell and spent every advancement resource on it a fighter could be damn functional as a combat machine (if that is a fair characterization)

This one was level 14 or so weapon specialist dual wielder, longswords, 7/2 base attacks. 18/00 strength, 2E frostbrand and some other blade I forget.

1 in 21,600 strength (or magic the real way to be awesome this is D&D Ogre Power gauntlets by any other name would smell as sweet) what is weapon specialist? ah an unearthed arcana? I thought the highest end possible was 2 but I forgot dual wielding in other words add on rules and magic gear up to here... magic gear up to here.

Now take it back a notch to the conversation at hand my 17 strength fighter bumped up to level 14 with no magic gear is still 2x(d8+1)+ d4+1 each round.

If we are really talking about the subject of the supremacy of magic admit it the fighter was bloody lame without magic.

 

[Maxperson]

Any way fighters being not really being adequate in combat issues such as they were seem to have been mostly resolved in the here and now ( though from what I can 4th edition was the first to really do that.) 3e according to Tony if you optimized like hell and spent every advancement resource on it a fighter could be damn functional as a combat machine (if that is a fair characterization)

1 in 21,600 strength (or magic the real way to be awesome this is D&D Ogre Power gauntlets by any other name would smell as sweet) what is weapon specialist? ah an unearthed arcana? I thought the highest end possible was 2 but I forgot dual wielding in other words add on rules and magic gear up to here... magic gear up to here.

Specialization was in the 2e PHB, but proficiencies were explicitly optional rules, so the DM had to be playing with those rules. My personal experience was that every DM I played with used them, but I suppose some didn't.

Specialization was only available to the fighter class. It gave +1 to hit and+2 to damage, and your attack rate was one category higher. So you had 3/2 at levels 1-6, 2/1 at levels 7-12, and 5/2 at levels 13+

 

[Garthanos]

Specialization was in the 2e PHB

Shrug doesn't do anything for that 1e fighter I mentioned but regardless take the numbers and compare with magic and without magic on the same fighter.

 

[Garthanos]

If we are really talking about the subject of the supremacy of magic admit it the fighter was bloody lame without magic compared to himself with magic.

 

[Maxperson]

Shrug doesn't do anything for that 1e fighter I mentioned but regardless take the numbers and compare with magic and without magic on the same fighter.

Yeah, it was in the 1e UA, but those rules were very sketchy on being used and varied highly from table to table. Even so, my memory is closer to yours. Fighters were generally at a disadvantage against wizards of the same level, unless they could get the jump on an unprepared wizard, then the wizard was screwed. If the wizard knew the fight was coming, things like stoneskin, invisibility and flight meant the fighter lost the fight.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

Wouldn't it be so much better if, for example, someone who was a huge fan of 4e would discuss those parts of 4e that were essential to D&D, and, moreoever, help make "D&D" (5e) what it is today? That would be awesome. And fun.

Yup, it would be FANTASTIC if we could talk about that. Unfortunately, any time that gets tried, we get told that nope, nothing from 4e helped make 5e what it is today. Things like 2 step recovery, simplified skill systems, and a host of other elements that come from 4e aren't allowed to be talked about because we get shouted down every single time we try.

So, why not just agree with the critics? They won after all. 4e isn't part of the D&D family and it's exclusion highlights what actually is the essence of D&D - the primacy of magic.

That folks might not like that conclusion is rather irrelevant. It's not a value judgement to say that D&D has always placed magic ahead of everything else.

Again, why do you think 33 out of 36 PHB classes have access to magic? D&D has gone from seeing magic maybe one round in an encounter to seeing multiple spells being cast every round of every encounter.