What is the essence of D&D

[Tony Vargas]

It's largely that I do not really like the simple options. I would rather the Champion just not exist. In my 4th Edition games I did not include the Slayer or the Knight. I largely ignored the Essentials stuff.

One viable option is to simply make the more complicated stuff severable. For instance, you could let someone pay a 4e 'greatweapon' fighter, and just nix the encounters & dailies. He'd be simple. He'd be strictly inferior. But he would be able to handle the Defender Role at least as well as a Companion character.
Or, to have simple options to swap in for more complicated ones - a single 'feat package' instead of choosing a new one every level, 'pre-builds' (like pregens except the not-too-complicated stuff is left open), etc.

I get that some people don’t want to play the Champion because it’s too “simple”, but why do you care if other people do? Is there something about the concept that conflicts with your philosophy of the game?

Well, it cuts both ways, really. There's nothing wrong with having simple options available, if they're at least viable (which has not always been the case), there's nothing wrong with more choice-rich options, if unless they're just plain broken (which often has been the case), and the presence of both in no way prevents those interested in only one from choosing that one.

Yet, /only/ the fighter got a simple option in 5e*. And, his choice-rich non-caster option makes, what? an additional 6 meaningful choices?

The whole simple-fighter fetish seems like it's just part and parcel of the same 'Primacy of Magic' Essence-of-D&D. A simple fighter won't rival casters in versatility, so even if he gets some big numbers, doesn't threaten the Primacy of Magic. It's certainly very compatible with it, whatever motivations some of its proponents may harbor.









* OK, arguably the Barbarian /only/ has simple options. I mustn't keep forgetting about the barbarian.

 

[Oofta]

So you have no opinions about any other edition? Nor the analogous plight of the poor sorcerer, with not a unique spell to his class name in two other editions?

It was an answer to a question about the structure of 4E.

In other editions you have the option of playing martial characters that feel different in structure and resource management.

Did they duplicate word for word? Of course not. But in my opinion the resource management, structure and supernatural nature of powers felt generic. There were several things my fighter did that to could have relabeled arcane, changed the focus a bit and nobody would have batted an eye.

None of that necessarily made it a bad game. It was just a game I stopped wanting to play.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The simpler conclusion that jives more closely with the majority of more in depth arguments i've seen up to today would be, "the powers may not literally be the same, but they effectively are, because they do basically the same couple things, and there is no meaningful difference between any two examples."

Which is what I'm arguing against.

Don't.

Argue against the strongest possible version of your opponents' case. Nobody here and now has even come close to claiming what you're reporting to be the "majority" argument. So even if your report is accurate (a caveat on which I am extremely skeptical), so what? Do you want a trophy for being smarter than the dumbest person you could find on the internet?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Nope. Getting updates requires a sub. Well, okay, you could get the update files from someone with a sub.

But that doesn't really address what I asked. I asked when DDi was free during the actual run of 4e. When could you legally get the updates, compendium, and magazines without a sub?

You answered your own question. There was a lengthy period when you could use the Character Builder without a current sub. Which, naturally, a lot of people did.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Did they duplicate word for word? Of course not. But the resource management, structure and supernatural nature of powers felt generic.

Powers were not all supernatural. Martial powers were not. That's a fact. Your opinion doesn't change that fact. (Now, if we're talking cleaving to the Primacy of Magic, then the fighter having powers that could be perceived as magical and/or that rival the magical powers of other classes would be a red flag. An exploit or maneuver that's too powerful, in a case of iron-clad circular reasoning, either would be magical, and thus couldn't be a fighter maneuver, or wouldn't be magical and thus couldn't be allowed to be so powerful. That is, if the Primacy of Magic is treated as a goal, axiom, Essential to D&D.)

So, leave out 'supernatural nature.' That leaves resource management & structure. Now, /every/ caster in 1e and 2e, used the same resource management - Vancian - and the same structure (all spells had the same stat block). In 3e, there was the spontaneous-casting variation on Vancian, and not only did all spells have the same structure, they were all mixed together in one list with many spell shared. In 5e, the difference between neo-Vancian 'prepped' and 'known' casters is remarkably slight, and they're all spontaneous with regard to resource management. Most have few, and the sorcerer has no, unique spells on their lists. And, yet, all that is somehow not a problem that makes all caster feel generic and samey?

Again, it sounds like your point is related to Campbell's observation that other eds (Real D&D editions, that respect the Primacy of Magic, I'd say) put a higher priority on differentiating casters from non-casters, than casters from eachother.

There were several things my fighter did that to could have relabeled arcane, changed the focus a bit and
nobody would have batted an eye.

Well, arcane powers tend to be able to do literally anything, so not too surprising. I mean, fighters attacked very effectively in melee (and little else), back in the day, a Tensers Transformation, and so did the Magic-User. Still, what things were those?

It think the point would be more interesting could you scrub the Wizard name & Arcane keyword & fluff off a wizard attack spell, and have a fighter attack exploit, ready for martial fluff.

A survey of fighter & wizard powers reveals some very significant differences: Wizards don't have a single weapon power. Fighters don't have any implement powers. Fighters also don't have area powers, having mostly melee, while wizards are mostly range/area. That prettymuch leaves Close powers. The fighters Close powers tend to be close burst 1, and affect enemies /the fighter can see/. The wizard's tend to be blasts, some affect all creatures, some only enemies (but all enemies). The fighter does untyped damage with his weapon, the wizard mostly does various elemental damage types, sometimes psychic, occasionally radiant.

No candidates leap to mind. The exploits of the fighter and spells of the caster actually very different. Moreso than, say, the spells of Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock are from eachother in 5e.

In other editions you have the option of playing martial characters that feel different in structure and resource management.

I guess the issue, then, is why is it only the martial classes that /need/ to have different structure & resource management?

The Primacy of Magic as Essence of D&D is certainly one potential, underlying reason.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You answered your own question. There was a lengthy period when you could use the Character Builder without a current sub. Which, naturally, a lot of people did.

"Without a /current/ sub" is not the same as free. You could also have pirated it. ::

 

[Oofta]

Powers were not all supernatural. Martial powers were not. That's a fact. Your opinion doesn't change that fact. (Now, if we're talking cleaving to the Primacy of Magic, then the fighter having powers that could be perceived as magical and/or that rival the magical powers of other classes would be a red flag. An exploit or maneuver that's too powerful, in a case of iron-clad circular reasoning, either would be magical, and thus couldn't be a fighter maneuver, or wouldn't be magical and thus couldn't be allowed to be so powerful. That is, if the Primacy of Magic is treated as a goal, axiom, Essential to D&D.)

So, leave out 'supernatural nature.' That leaves resource management & structure. Now, /every/ caster in 1e and 2e, used the same resource management - Vancian - and the same structure (all spells had the same stat block). In 3e, there was the spontaneous-casting variation on Vancian, and not only did all spells have the same structure, they were all mixed together in one list with many spell shared. In 5e, the difference between neo-Vancian 'prepped' and 'known' casters is remarkably slight, and they're all spontaneous with regard to resource management. Most have few, and the sorcerer has no, unique spells on their lists. And, yet, all that is somehow not a problem that makes all caster feel generic and samey?

Again, it sounds like your point is related to Campbell's observation that other eds (Real D&D editions, that respect the Primacy of Magic, I'd say) put a higher priority on differentiating casters from non-casters, than casters from eachother.

Well, arcane powers tend to be able to do literally anything, so not too surprising. I mean, fighters attacked very effectively in melee (and little else), back in the day, a Tensers Transformation, and so did the Magic-User. Still, what things were those?

It think the point would be more interesting could you scrub the Wizard name & Arcane keyword & fluff off a wizard attack spell, and have a fighter attack exploit, ready for martial fluff.

A survey of fighter & wizard powers reveals some very significant differences: Wizards don't have a single weapon power. Fighters don't have any implement powers. Fighters also don't have area powers, having mostly melee, while wizards are mostly range/area. That prettymuch leaves Close powers. The fighters Close powers tend to be close burst 1, and affect enemies /the fighter can see/. The wizard's tend to be blasts, some affect all creatures, some only enemies (but all enemies). The fighter does untyped damage with his weapon, the wizard mostly does various elemental damage types, sometimes psychic, occasionally radiant.

No candidates leap to mind. The exploits of the fighter and spells of the caster actually very different. Moreso than, say, the spells of Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock are from eachother in 5e.

I guess the issue, then, is why is it only the martial classes that /need/ to have different structure & resource management?

The Primacy of Magic as Essence of D&D is certainly one potential, underlying reason.

My fighter did things that were physically impossible. That's the definition of supernatural.

All builds followed the same pattern.

I also disagree with the primacy of magic theory you keep pushing.

But all that is just my opinion.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

"Without a /current/ sub" is not the same as free. You could also have pirated it. ::

Point me to where I used the word "free".

 

[Campbell]

All fighters in all editions do things that are physically impossible to do. They fight things with a little piece of metal that no human being could possibly fight.

In real life even a teenage gorilla would flatten any human easily.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

An exploit or maneuver that's too powerful, in a case of iron-clad circular reasoning, either would be magical, and thus couldn't be a fighter maneuver, or wouldn't be magical and thus couldn't be allowed to be so powerful. That is, if the Primacy of Magic is treated as a goal, axiom, Essential to D&D.)

That's iron-clad circular reasoning, all right, but perhaps not in the sense you intend.