Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

Never said it proved anything other than different strokes.

The tenor of many threads belies the most paraimonious explanation: people don’t play D&D because they don’t know any better or because they have not been exposed to options: many people like it and what they see as a “true issue” is super opinion based.

I have things I would like changed…but I am not in the majority on those issues. I would not be able to say more than that.

But the inverse is also true; the fact there isn't a massive push to address something can mean someone is okay with it, or it can mean they've decided its a lost cause and/or gone on to other games.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think the first half should require a caster; doing things like tripping, getting characters into a blade bind, attacking armor pieces and more is not magical. And it shouldn't require GM buy-in just to be able to do it.

None of those are crowd control. They are one guy control. Which martial can do. I agree on the GM buy in part: the base rules should support doing more than stabbing things, and in a way that it isn't a punishment, and not subject to GM-may-I.

But most of the complaints I see about martial being outclassed by casters revolve around stuff it doesn't make any sense in the fiction for martials to be able to do. If you want to kill 10 enemies with a wave of your wand, play a class that can cast fireball.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

But the inverse is also true; the fact there isn't a massive push to address something can mean someone is okay with it, or it can mean they've decided its a lost cause and/or gone on to other games.

We absolutely had house in 1e fwiw.

We used spell points which are a little different that 5e among other tweaks. Always room for that even now. Though we play closely to the book now.

And as I say that…I do. My friend who dms more mixes more in…

 

[overgeeked]

One of the many things 4E did wonderfully was not artificially limit roles and playstyles. You wanted to be a martial healer, here’s the warlord. You wanted to be a martial controller, here’s the ranger (hunter). It’s not hard to find ways to fill various roles with non-traditional classes or power sources. It only requires a bit of imagination.

 

[Reynard]

One of the many things 4E did wonderfully was not artificially limit roles and playstyles. You wanted to be a martial healer, here’s the warlord. You wanted to be a martial controller, here’s the ranger (hunter). It’s not hard to find ways to fill various roles with non-traditional classes or power sources. It only requires a bit of imagination.

Everyone imagines their fantasy a little differently. While there is nothing wrong with the over the top high fantasy milieu where archers shoot 100 arrows at a crowd, there is also nothing wrong with a more grounded approach. It is okay to embrace the tropes and limitations of a particular kind of fantasy.

One thing that D&D has never been particularly good at is offering tools to do multiple styles of fantasy. There is no "gritty Abercrombie" dial in 5E, for example, just like there is no "awesome wuxia action" dial in B/X. For a game that kind of bills itself as providing a broad variety of potential fantasy game styles, D&D doesn't really put any effort into doing so.

 

[Faolyn]

Right, but the MU gets to be awesome that one time and the fighter gets to do it all day (or as long as the cleric has spells).

Yeah, but how many times per day is a DM going to throw giants at you--especially giants so weak that a fighter can kill one in one round?

 

[Thomas Shey]

None of those are crowd control. They are one guy control. Which martial can do. I agree on the GM buy in part: the base rules should support doing more than stabbing things, and in a way that it isn't a punishment, and not subject to GM-may-I.

But most of the complaints I see about martial being outclassed by casters revolve around stuff it doesn't make any sense in the fiction for martials to be able to do. If you want to kill 10 enemies with a wave of your wand, play a class that can cast fireball.

Well, I don't care one direction or another about that; if people want to do over the top wuxia stuff, I think there's a place for that and the strong resistance is just a matter of taste, not a moral principal.

But when I commented about "just doing a lot of damage" it was that outside of talking the GM into it, that's about the answer you sometimes get for early D&D, and I don't think its much of an answer. They could have had a massive crit system for fighters back in the day and that wouldn't have made them that much more interesting (other than to the degree they added a bit of texture to hit point ablation).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Everyone imagines their fantasy a little differently. While there is nothing wrong with the over the top high fantasy milieu where archers shoot 100 arrows at a crowd, there is also nothing wrong with a more grounded approach. It is okay to embrace the tropes and limitations of a particular kind of fantasy.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm not sure D&D has ever been serious about being grounded. It had too many elements that pulled away from that on day one.

At best its wanted to have its cake and eat it too, and I don't think that does it a great service.

 

[overgeeked]

It just takes some imagination to think of grounded non-caster healers and non-caster crowd controllers.

Non-caster healer. 4E already has an example: the warlord. But let's brainstorm a few more. The two that jump immediately to mind are a combat medic and an herbalist. The combat medic makes and uses non-magical bandages and stimulants. The herbalist makes and uses non-magical healing salves and poultices. The bandages, stimulants, salves, and poultices have various effects that heal and buff their allies, possibly debuffing their enemies. Cool, so that's two ideas here plus the warlord makes three. And that's with a few seconds of thought, I'm sure others could come up with more and better.

Non-caster crowd controller. Again, 4E already has an example: the ranger (hunter). But let's brainstorm a few more. The two that jump immediately to mind are a trapper and a bomb-thrower. The trapper makes and uses non-magical traps and places them around the battlefield. The bomb-thrower makes and uses...wait for it...bombs and...wait for it...throws them around the battlefield. The traps and bombs have various effects to control the battlefield and the enemy's movements. Again, that's two ideas here plus the ranger (hunter) makes three. And that's with a few seconds of thought, I'm sure others could come up with more and better.

It's honestly not that hard. And they're all grounded examples, so there's no worry about messing with someone's fantasy.

 

[Reynard]

Isn't "I want all the capabilities of a wizard plus all the capabilities of a ranger" a little antithetical to the class based structure? Just play a Ranger falvored wizard. Fireball is a bomb. Whatever.