D&D (2024) 4/26 Playtest: The Fighter

[Stalker0]

The helicopter was a Airbus AS350, which is 10 x 35 ft. That is 14 squares, or 350 sq ft. A large creature maxes at 10x10, or 100 sq feet. The helicopter, by the rules of DnD is between Huge (15 x 15 or 225 sq ft) and Gargantuan (20x20 or 400 sq ft)

It also has a max take-off weight of 4,960 lbs. So, I guess by "most sources" Cap would fail. Also, according to the Official Marvel Database, Captain America can lift 1,200 lbs "with effort". So double 20 strength and closer to the Bear Totem.

Fair enough, my google sources said 800 but I did not dig in too closely.

As you say, this one was more "movie magic" then anything, as even by stats cap shouldn't have been able to move that helicopter like he did, but there is no equivalent push for the fighter in that arena.

Champions =/= all fighters. You might as well say that all fighters are psychic and have pet dragons, because there are subclasses for psychic fighters and sublcasses for dragon riding fighters.

The Champion is the most "standard" fighter, and as its the OneDnd subclass we have its the one I used. Your right, I could have chosen an echo knight and suddenly possessed abilities far more awesome than Cap or even Thor in certain ways. But the exercise was to show that fighters are closely to Captain America, and so I'm using the basic standard.

If I used a Samurai for example, well once per day I could pull off the Thor feat of taking the full force of a star (I drop to 0 hp, then use a second wind with strength before death), except better than Thor because I don't actually fall unconscious.

There is no perfect "this is captain america" subclass, I'm just using what we have to see if we can get a reasonable equivalency of power.

And any high level mage too. It's only 70 damage.

Sure, but we already agree that Mages are thor level

 

[ECMO3]

D&D figters can't even do all the things that real life human warriors can do. They can't even do all the stuff -I- can do in combat and I haven't thrown a punch in over twenty years.

I would argue they can do everything real life warriors do, it is just captured in one set of mechanics.

For example, how you make an unarmed strike is not part of the rules, only the damage and attack roll is. You can do anything Bruce Lee can do, and you can even do it without having Bruce Lee type strength or agility.

 

[Incenjucar]

I would argue they can do everything real life warriors do, it is just captured in one set of mechanics.

For example, how you make an unarmed strike is not part of the rules, only the damage and attack roll is. You can do anything Bruce Lee can do, and you can even do it without having Bruce Lee type strength or agility.

I can do a leg sweep to knock someone on their butt regardless of what's in my hands, knocking them prone, and then immediately start wailing on them. I can also grab two people by the heads and knock their skulls together in one action. I can also knock the air out of someone and seriously hamper them for a good thirty seconds, making them readily vulnerable to any oncoming attacks. I can also do horrible things to someone's eyes or ears in various ways. And I'm just a chubby old nerd who can box a little.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

His response to mine wasn't about the logical consistency of the scenario of a paladin's head being cutoff. It was about the game mechanics behind how that would happen. I hadn't revealed how that had happened at all, I'm just explaining that the DM is within their right to treat PC's as NPC's are treated upon death and reminding him that I never said that the even if they disagree with that, the Paladin was never stated to be a PC or NPC.

So the goalpost I set was about the absurdity of the rogue's abilities. Not on the situation itself in the context of the D&D game. I was addressing a tangent, not moving a goalpost.

OK, so to highlight "the absurdity of the rogue's abilities" the game mechanics behind the situation you posited had the Rogue match the effect of a Wish spell with a skill check.

Do you believe that that is an honest representation of what people are asking for?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because if you don't want to do fantastic abilities you can simply not use them, whereas the people who want fantastic abilities can't get them otherwise. "I don't want steak so no one can have steak" vs "I want steak on the menu".

Why does everything fantastic have to be a spell? Dragonborn don't cast "Dragonborn Breath". The ancestral protectors, spirit shield, etc of the Ancestral Guardians Barbarian aren't spells. Letting a fighter throw a colossal creature shouldn't require a spell (that casters therefore get) either. The spell format takes up more room, has components, and allows poaching by other classes.

If magical is okay, why are spells not?

There are so many non-magical things you can do with sleight of hand an impossible prediction abilities, like the stuff you see Sherlock Holmes doing in some of the newer movies. A fighter being able to find the exact place to hit a wall of force to split it open is just an extension of that.

I like the idea of martials being able to break magic, rather than do it themselves.

I’d really like magic to take more time and be interruptible, so you must choose between the big boom or hitting something right now. Perhaps complex spells started during a turn go off at the start of the next round or at the start of your next turn.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm fine with that but my impression is that people don't want magic to he involved in anything the fighter does at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but my experience when I say "We can make the fighter magical" there's all sorts of pushback.

There is pushback to everything. Do I want the fighter to have spells? No. Do I want them to have abilities that cause saving throws and have DCs? Yes.

To some people they will say there is no difference between those two, but just because those people are pushing back doesn't mean I can't make the proposal.

That's what I said. They choose those spells because they're overly powerful and hardly punish the user. But if the standard of status-inflicting spells were like Eyebite, Or self-buffing spells like Haste, then playing casters would drive more challenge than choosing the perfect spell for the job and succeeding with hardly a struggle.

You have utterly lost me. First, I asked for what spells just work, and you gave me eyebite... a spell that has a save and doesn't always work.

Then you say that all spells that can fail are bad, I give you examples of ones that aren't... and you say they don't punish the user enough and are very powerful.... which again.... like all spells?! Like, what punishment for the user comes from Haste? The caster sufferes nothing. Because it isn't a self-buff spell at all. Using it on yourself is one of the single worst things a caster could do with that spell.

And so ultimately... I'm just confused what you want. You seem to just want to get rid of all spells and rewrite the entire spellcasting system. Which, you know, cool, but you keep phrasing it like there are only this small handful of badly designed spells, then talking about universal designs.

That's because it matches the more whimsical tone of Peter Pan. I mean, Peter Pan itself is a nonsensical story and fairly Kafka-esque so absurdities like tying shadows are consistent.

But not all stories can just have these absurdities and maintain its tone.

And how is it absurd? How is it nonsensical? How is it less nonsensical than a creature covered in slippery goo walking through an empty picture frame and teleporting to the ceiling? Living Shadows which can kill you and rip your shadow free to join them in their quest of destruction. Or being able to steal the shadow of a man you killed to take his appearance and memories. All of those things are things IN DND. Right Now.

So... why can't DnD support the same types of stories it currently has?

That would be true if Raise Dead was the only ressurection spell a Cleric has access to. But True Ressurection can replace limbs and organs or even a whole body. So no, that doesn't upend my pritest.

So a medical skill equal to Raise Dead breaks suspension of disbelief. But Raise Dead doesn't, because True Resurrection exists?

I'll say it again because I'm very confused. You can't have a medical character with surgical skill equal to Raise Dead, because that breaks suspension of disbelief and is too nonsensical. But Raise Dead is fine, because the more powerful True Ressurrection exists to solve the problems Raise Dead can't. That's the position you want to take here?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Fair enough, my google sources said 800 but I did not dig in too closely.

As you say, this one was more "movie magic" then anything, as even by stats cap shouldn't have been able to move that helicopter like he did, but there is no equivalent push for the fighter in that arena.

Um... yes, there IS a push for the DnD Fighter to do more stuff like that. What do you mean there isn't a push? And until I showed you the real numbers, you were all gung-ho that that was a standard for DnD Fighters, but now that you see the real numbers involved you go "oh, well, guess DnD fighter's shouldn't be allowed to do that."

Why do the numbers matter more to you than the scene? You were completely fine with that scene as a standard until I showed you that it would mean buffing the fighter to reach it, and now it is some unobtainable goal?!

The Champion is the most "standard" fighter, and as its the OneDnd subclass we have its the one I used. Your right, I could have chosen an echo knight and suddenly possessed abilities far more awesome than Cap or even Thor in certain ways. But the exercise was to show that fighters are closely to Captain America, and so I'm using the basic standard.

If I used a Samurai for example, well once per day I could pull off the Thor feat of taking the full force of a star (I drop to 0 hp, then use a second wind with strength before death), except better than Thor because I don't actually fall unconscious.

There is no perfect "this is captain america" subclass, I'm just using what we have to see if we can get a reasonable equivalency of power.

But no one wants the subclass to be the standard. They want the CLASS to be the standard. I don't understand why this is so difficult. Whenever we discuss any caster, any druid, any cleric, any sorcerer, any wizard, any Bard we can talk about the class and their abilities no problem. The second we try and talk about a martial like the Fighter, we immediately have to instead talk about the subclasses

You know who else could pull of that Thor feat? Any Half-orc. Any Cleric. Any Paladin. Any divine Soul Sorcerer. And they can do it NINE LEVELS SOONER.

Also the Samurai can only do it if the damage doesn't kill them outright, and it does nothing if the effect would bypass damage and just kill them. This is why when people want to model Thor, they use a Cleric. Because a fighter isn't as good.

Sure, but we already agree that Mages are thor level

So if every single mage is Thor level, why can't every single Fighter be Thor level?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I would argue they can do everything real life warriors do, it is just captured in one set of mechanics.

For example, how you make an unarmed strike is not part of the rules, only the damage and attack roll is. You can do anything Bruce Lee can do, and you can even do it without having Bruce Lee type strength or agility.

Sure, but if my triple spinning back fist that breaks a shield into splinters just does the same 1+str mod damage and leaves the shield intact that a basic haymaker does... then it doesn't feel like I've actually done anything. It feels like I'm actually just... pretending it was something it wasn't.

 

[Remathilis]

Because if you don't want to do fantastic abilities you can simply not use them, whereas the people who want fantastic abilities can't get them otherwise. "I don't want steak so no one can have steak" vs "I want steak on the menu".

Why does everything fantastic have to be a spell? Dragonborn don't cast "Dragonborn Breath". The ancestral protectors, spirit shield, etc of the Ancestral Guardians Barbarian aren't spells. Letting a fighter throw a colossal creature shouldn't require a spell (that casters therefore get) either. The spell format takes up more room, has components, and allows poaching by other classes.

Why does everything fantastic have to be a spell? Dragonborn don't cast "Dragonborn Breath". The ancestral protectors, spirit shield, etc of the Ancestral Guardians Barbarian aren't spells. Letting a fighter throw a colossal creature shouldn't require a spell (that casters therefore get) either. The spell format takes up more room, has components, and allows poaching by other classes.

Magic =/= spells.

Perhaps "supernatural" would be a better term. Nearly every class in D&D is supernatural. Monks don't cast spells, but their abilities are supernatural. Barbarian rage is supernatural. Psionics are supernatural. Even a dragonborn's breath or aasimar's wings are supernatural. Most D&D is supernatural. Except fighters. And rogues. They have absolutely nothing magical or supernatural about them.

Change that.

Call out that they tap into supernatural abilities beyond mortal ken. Make it a super soldier serum or divine birthright or multiple choice. State they are in fact more than mortal and then let them chuck mountains. But be clear it's supernatural power like ki, primal spirits or the Music of Creation that's powering it.

 

[Asisreo]

OK, so to highlight "the absurdity of the rogue's abilities" the game mechanics behind the situation you posited had the Rogue match the effect of a Wish spell with a skill check.

Do you believe that that is an honest representation of what people are asking for?

Considering many response were "makes sense, why not?" I do think that's an honest representation. I was saying that such a situation would be absurd and the response I get are "No, but we actually do want that!" So its hard not to imagine that at least a select few people do believe rogues should be able to duplicate the Wish spell on a skill check.

You have utterly lost me. First, I asked for what spells just work, and you gave me eyebite... a spell that has a save and doesn't always work.

Then you say that all spells that can fail are bad, I give you examples of ones that aren't... and you say they don't punish the user enough and are very powerful.... which again.... like all spells?! Like, what punishment for the user comes from Haste? The caster sufferes nothing. Because it isn't a self-buff spell at all. Using it on yourself is one of the single worst things a caster could do with that spell.

And so ultimately... I'm just confused what you want. You seem to just want to get rid of all spells and rewrite the entire spellcasting system. Which, you know, cool, but you keep phrasing it like there are only this small handful of badly designed spells, then talking about universal designs.

Eyebite was my example of a spell that doesn't just work and is a perfectly balanced spell that gets ignored for spells that do just work.

Fireball just works since it guarantees damage and its range can avoid counterspell. Wall of Force just works as it forces the enemy to engage with it whether they have disintegrate or teleportation or not.

Well-designed spell: Teleport, risk of failure. Poorly designed spell: misty step, extremely reliable.
How to make spell more balanced: cannot move the next turn.

Well-designed spell: Scrying, failure prevents use for another day.
Poorly designed spell: Find Familiar
Fix: Not a ritual, if familiar dies, lose significant amount of HP.

And how is it absurd? How is it nonsensical? How is it less nonsensical than a creature covered in slippery goo walking through an empty picture frame and teleporting to the ceiling? Living Shadows which can kill you and rip your shadow free to join them in their quest of destruction. Or being able to steal the shadow of a man you killed to take his appearance and memories. All of those things are things IN DND. Right Now.

So... why can't DnD support the same types of stories it currently has?

All of those are internally consistent with D&D lore, logic, and immersion via inherent magic. I've already said I'm fine with inherent magic in the fighter but let's be sure to call a spade a spade.

So a medical skill equal to Raise Dead breaks suspension of disbelief. But Raise Dead doesn't, because True Resurrection exists?

I'll say it again because I'm very confused. You can't have a medical character with surgical skill equal to Raise Dead, because that breaks suspension of disbelief and is too nonsensical. But Raise Dead is fine, because the more powerful True Ressurrection exists to solve the problems Raise Dead can't. That's the position you want to take here?

I can see that you're confused because nothing you just said is what I said whatsoever.

Firstly, the cleric in the example didn't use Raise Dead. They used True Ressurection. I never said anything abour Raise Dead and I don't know where that spell even came from.

I think surgical skill equal to True Ressurection is nonsense. There's no way to explain how a character can bring back the dead with pure surgery without the assistance of some form of magic. Now if the rogue understood, say, the magical essence of life and was able to use thread imbued with magic that he discerned because he's that good, I can understand that.

But simply brute-forcing the "he's that good" explanation into a mechanic for a game just doesn't work on an immersive level once questions arise.