D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Aldarc]

Er...when you say "making everything spells", to what are you referring?

I think we've slipped a gear somewhere in this conversasion.

You said that this distinction was possible "by simply stating that certain spells have a casting time of 10 minutes, or even more." But IMHO this further erases the distinction between spells and rituals nor does it achieve the sort of clear cut distinction between spells and rituals that I personally find desirable. Obviously YMMV, and I'm fine with having differences of opinion on this matter.

 

[Lyxen]

"I have a sandwich, how can anyone else be hungry?"
Maybe accept people at their word when they say fighter types as is in 5E are unsatisfying? We have a half dozen caster classes, a number of them redundant wastes of space (hi sorcerer/druid), so why does a certain crowd always pop up to shout down a new, complex fighter type class that they have no interest in playing anyways?

And maybe, with multiple people here telling you that it's never been a problem for them, you can accept that theoretical speculations like "fighter types are unsatisfying" is just that, theoretical, and that in practice, with a varied game, they work and that people who play them can actually have fun without being stupid ? And that, with the 5e principle of the DM being in charge so that everyone has fun, the solution is elsewhere in the game than in theoretical computations looking at a class with a microscope to determine "fun" ?

And I'm not against you homebrewing something else if you think you need it, or against WotC buffing up the fighter a bit like they did for some classes in Tasha with options, I'm just tired of the WotC/Fighter bashing from purely theoretical considerations that actually have little importance in actual games. You don't like the fighter, then don't play it, or discuss it with your DM, I'm sure a solution will be found.

 

[Minigiant]

And maybe, with multiple people here telling you that it's never been a problem for them, you can accept that theoretical speculations like "fighter types are unsatisfying" is just that, theoretical, and that in practice, with a varied game, they work and that people who play them can actually have fun without being stupid ? And that, with the 5e principle of the DM being in charge so that everyone has fun, the solution is elsewhere in the game than in theoretical computations looking at a class with a microscope to determine "fun" ?

And I'm not against you homebrewing something else if you think you need it, or against WotC buffing up the fighter a bit like they did for some classes in Tasha with options, I'm just tired of the WotC/Fighter bashing from purely theoretical considerations that actually have little importance in actual games. You don't like the fighter, then don't play it, or discuss it with your DM, I'm sure a solution will be found.

I think the issue s many people dont get is that there are multiple way to handle design. TSR, WOTC, and D&D have chosen different ways to handle the fighter and every other class in the 5 editions. Someone might agree with one editions's design for fighter while someone else might like another edition. Many people have preferences across many editions.

If anything the problem is the design philosophies are not written openly and the variants are few.

So DMs have all the freedom but few tools and no instructions manual for modification of classes. As someone works inessential industries, freedomto do something is only helpful if you know what you are doing.

 

[Lyxen]

I think the issue s many people dont get is that there are multiple way to handle design. TSR, WOTC, and D&D have chosen different ways to handle the fighter and every other class in the 5 editions. Someone might agree with one editions's design for fighter while someone else might like another edition. Many people have preferences across many editions.

This is an excellent point, it's obvious when looking at design that they way to address it was extremely different in particular in 3e, 4e and 5e, and that people have clear preferences, which is normal.

If anything the problem is the design philosophies are not written openly and the variants are few.

This is the part where I don't agree. The design philosophies are absolutely crystal clear when reading the rules or what the authors say about them. There is in particular an extremely enlightening section of the SAC which says: "The DM is key. Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t."

This clearly addresses the difference between 3e, 4e and 5e. The problem is not that the design philosophies are not clear, the problem is that some people don't like this pointed out, because they don't like to be shown that the game they would like is not the one that has been published. And so they deny it, and belittle it instead of accepting that the game simply is as it was designed. And they absolutely want it to change to suit them, which has never happened in the history of the game. After its initial design, while there are minor changes to the game, the philosophy remains intact because breaking it would basically mean rewriting the game, which actually creates a new edition.

Which is basically what Level Up is about, by the way, based on a much crunchier philosophy, it has some common basis with 5e (all editions have something in common with previous ones), but it's a very different game which plays very differently as written.

So DMs have all the freedom but few tools and no instructions manual for modification of classes. As someone works inessential industries, freedom to do something is only helpful if you know what you are doing.

And this is the part where, while I agree with you that 5e created a lot of freedom and did not give many explanations, I completely reject this as a reason to claim the game is flawed, or even incomplete. 5e has been a massive success, multiplying the number of players by what, 5, 10, more? across the planet. This means that a huge majority of the players are NEW players, and if they managed to pick up the game and play it, is must not have been that difficult, and they did not need that many more explanation than what is in the rules and the examples of play that they find on the internet.

It's also a game where it's safe to experiment, it's amongst friends, and there are no really damaging consequences. You can learn to walk as you are doing it.

The people who complain about this, by the way, are NOT people who don't know what they are doing. All the people that I've seen making that claim are at least fairly experienced and they argue about fine details about balance. Because they don't like the premises of 5e (in general wanting more crunch, more built-in balance so that they can play it as sport or whatever), the complain on the imaginary behalf of "those poor others who don't know what they are doing and need more help". But these people don't exist, I have seen many younger players who had no real idea of what they were doing becoming DMs and entertaining their friends, with or without guidance from the internet, friends, parents, etc. and needing absolutely zero more guidance from the rules.

So can we please stop confusing things here ? If you want more crunch or innate balance for the game or some classes in particular, it's fine, it's your preference in playing the game and I respect that. And you have all the latitude you need in the game to create it for yourself, or reuse what is in great publications like Level Up.

But please stop complaining on behalf of imaginary people, and stop hoping that 5e (and the anniversary edition) will accommodate your wishes. It's not going to be a new edition, 5e is going much too well for WotC to kill the golden goose, so leave aside your hopes of innate balance and crunchiness. If it's really what you crave, there are way better solutions out there, games with a philosophy that will match your preferences way better.

 

[Minigiant]

This is the part where I don't agree. The design philosophies are absolutely crystal clear when reading the rules or what the authors say about them. There is in particular an extremely enlightening section of the SAC which says: "The DM is key. Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t."

This clearly addresses the difference between 3e, 4e and 5e. The problem is not that the design philosophies are not clear, the problem is that some people don't like this pointed out, because they don't like to be shown that the game they would like is not the one that has been published. And so they deny it, and belittle it instead of accepting that the game simply is as it was designed. And they absolutely want it to change to suit them, which has never happened in the history of the game. After its initial design, while there are minor changes to the game, the philosophy remains intact because breaking it would basically mean rewriting the game, which actually creates a new edition.

Which is basically what Level Up is about, by the way, based on a much crunchier philosophy, it has some common basis with 5e (all editions have something in common with previous ones), but it's a very different game which plays very differently as written.

It's actually not clear. At no point does 5e state that it's fighters are designed around having magic items producing its shenaigans. It assumes you know this. Nor does it how many it assumes (the answer is ~8-10 over 20 levels)

So you have a situation where people debate about an untold design.
Then you have a situation where people designing and debating over unknown numbers hidden in statistics derived from tables in a book.

 

[Aldarc]

Edit: oh, I get it now - you're saying rituals aren't spells. I think they are, just under a different name and using different attrition rules in terms of slots etc.

Fundamentally, I think what helps our mutual cause is recognizing that ease at which spells or rituals are thrown around contribute to the fighter v. mage issue.

What I find interesting is how different OSR games have addressed this as these are D&D adjacent. I weirdly think that in some regards, old school games and 4e had some overlapping sensibilities when it came to magic in the broader scope of things. It's really 3e and 5e that gives magic spells out like candy on Halloween.

Worlds Without Number: Fighters are the best at combat bar none. Experts are the best with non-combat skills bar none.

Mages have spells. Mages are meant to have a high impact with their spells and do extraordinary things with them. Their spells are potent but few. A max level High Magic Mage (10th level) - here ignoring partial mages or other mage traditions - can prepare 12 spells, but only cast six spells per day, with a cap at 5th level spells.

Compare this with a 10th level 5e Wizard, who can probably prepare 14 spells (10 + 4 Int) and cast four level 1 spells, three level 2 spells, three level 3 spells, three level 4 spells, and two level 5 spells, while also being able to cast any of those that are ritual spells without using a spell slot.

Through Sunken Lands and Other Adventures: Here again, the Warrior is the best at combat and the Rogue is the best with skills.

The Mage gets access to Cantrips, Spells, and Rituals.* Spells don't have spell levels, and Mages have a number of spell slots equal to their character level. So a Mage can cast 10 spells at level 10. What's also noteworthy are the spells that are available or not. There are no spells like Mage Armor that are clearly meant to circumvent the fact that Mages can't wear armor. Mages don't get Fireball or any high damaging spells at all, because damage and combat are the Warrior's purview. Their only real damaging spells are Burning Hands (1d3 + 2/caster level in an arc) and Magic Missile (max four 1d6+1 bolts). Instead Mages get primarily utility spells.

Rituals, in contrast, do have a level. Rituals go up to 10th level, and a Ritual takes one hour per level to perform. So a 10th level Ritual will take the Mage 10 hours to perform. A Mage can only perform Rituals of their character level or lower.

* This distinction is useful because partial classes Rogue/Mage or Warrior/Mage don't get everything. The rogue-mage Spell Thief only gets Spells. The Elric-inspired warrior-mage Eldritch Sorcerer-King gets access to Cantrips and Rituals, but not Spells.

 

[Lyxen]

It's actually not clear. At no point does 5e state that it's fighters are designed around having magic items producing its shenaigans. It assumes you know this. Nor does it how many it assumes (the answer is ~8-10 over 20 levels)

And it does not have to, because it's only ONE of the possible way for the DM to balance things, and this only in the cases that he needs to balance things. Maybe he does not have a fighter and a wizard in his party. Maybe they are not interested by the balance. Maybe combat is not the focus of the game. Maybe the wizard and the player in the group work intelligently together and have fun. So many possibilities.

So you have a situation where people debate about an untold design.
Then you have a situation where people designing and debating over unknown numbers hidden in statistics derived from tables in a book.

And theorising about playing the game is not playing the game. You don't need that debate, just play the game, and if there is a problem (and there is no certainty that there will be one), solve it like mature people with your DM. Once more, the rules are not the game, especially in 5e. From the PH introduction : "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

 

[Oofta]

You’re “done with this” because you can’t support the claim, and you know it.

I'm done because there's no point. I've played and run games to 20th level. Fighters worked just fine for us, including my lowly champion fighter.

The system isn't the problem.

 

[Aldarc]

The system isn't the problem.

 

[Oofta]

It's the old "It doesn't matter if it works for you or millions of other people. It doesn't work because I complain about it so therefore it doesn't work. How do I know it doesn't work? Just look at how much I complain about it!"

If it doesn't work for you, why give details or ask for possible solutions. Why bother reexamining what the real issue is? Just continue to post complaints until people get tired of the incessant venting and then claim moral victory! Woo-hoo! You just won the internet!