Unpopular opinions go here

[Reynard]

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.

Serious question: should the tools that make your "martial healer" or "martial controller" be class locked? In other words,is there any defensible, in fiction reason why the wizard can't load up on herbs and bombs and then be even better? And if not, aren't we back in exactly the same place? And if we arbitrarily decide these mundane and grounded tools are only available to.a specific class, aren't we just back at "casters" minus the pointy hats?

 

[CleverNickName]

Ah, yes. It's on a different table so it wasn't immediately obvious.

My trouble with AD&D in a nutshell.

 

[overgeeked]

Serious question

It's not that serious, but I'll play along.

should the tools that make your "martial healer" or "martial controller" be class locked?

Yes, because they're the one who invented and made them.

In other words,is there any defensible, in fiction reason why the wizard can't load up on herbs and bombs and then be even better?

Yes, because they did not invent or make them. If the wizard player needs even more toys, they can multiclass.

But, importantly, you've got the wrong end of the problem...again. It's about game design. You design the game elements first, then fit the fiction to explain it.

And if not, aren't we back in exactly the same place?

No.

And if we arbitrarily decide these mundane and grounded tools are only available to.a specific class, aren't we just back at "casters" minus the pointy hats?

No.

 

[Reynard]

But, importantly, you've got the wrong end of the problem...again. It's about game design. You design the game elements first, then fit the fiction to explain it.

It isn't the "wrong end" it's just that you elevate gaming design to get the results you want.which is fine. But if someone doesn't do that, the results are different. It's not particularly conducive to discussion for you to just handwave away other approaches.

For example, let's say that rituals are magical operations that are NOT dependent on having a spell casting class. As long as you have the right tools -- bell, book, and candle -- anyone can enact the ritual. So, martials get to use magic just like wizards (under whatever constraint the ritual imposes).

This is exactly the same as artificers making bombs or whatever. If you set down some basic rules of the world, you then play by those rules, not whatever arbitrary limitations you build for "balance."

These are different approaches to design, and are equally valid within their paradigm.

 

[overgeeked]

It isn't the "wrong end" it's just that you elevate gaming design to get the results you want.which is fine. But if someone doesn't do that, the results are different. It's not particularly conducive to discussion for you to just handwave away other approaches.

Well, it's about the results. If the approach produces bad results, it's bad. Starting from the fiction, i.e. deciding everything that's true in the world first, then trying to design classes (or any other element for that matter) will give you nothing new. You'll just get the same old same old every time. The mechanics might be minor variations on what's gone before, but they generally won't be new. Write new mechanics, then write new fiction to justify those mechanics.

For example, let's say that rituals are magical operations that are NOT dependent on having a spell casting class. As long as you have the right tools -- bell, book, and candle -- anyone can enact the ritual. So, martials get to use magic just like wizards (under whatever constraint the ritual imposes).

Awesome. Let's do that. I loved that about 4E. Anyone can cast ritual magic. Sounds perfect. Great way to boost up the boring non-casters. Now just strip out rituals from slot-based casting. Love it.

This is exactly the same as artificers making bombs or whatever. If you set down some basic rules of the world, you then play by those rules, not whatever arbitrary limitations you build for "balance."

Again, mechanics then fiction. Why? Because, again, if you start from the fiction you established years ago you're artificially restrained to following that fiction, i.e. nothing new gets to happen because it doesn't follow the old fiction. That's bad.

These are different approaches to design, and are equally valid within their paradigm.

Only if they produce good results. The only thing that matters is the results. Does your approach produce nothing new? Then it's bad.

"But the established fiction..." is just a roundabout appeal to tradition. We can do better.

 

[Reynard]

Well, it's about the results. If the approach produces bad results, it's bad. Starting from the fiction, i.e. deciding everything that's true in the world first, then trying to design classes (or any other element for that matter) will give you nothing new. You'll just get the same old same old every time. The mechanics might be minor variations on what's gone before, but they generally won't be new. Write new mechanics, then write new fiction to justify those mechanics.

Awesome. Let's do that. I loved that about 4E. Anyone can cast ritual magic. Sounds perfect. Great way to boost up the boring non-casters. Now just strip out rituals from slot-based casting. Love it.

Again, mechanics then fiction. Why? Because, again, if you start from the fiction you established years ago you're artificially restrained to following that fiction, i.e. nothing new gets to happen because it doesn't follow the old fiction. That's bad.

Only if they produce good results. The only thing that matters is the results. Does your approach produce nothing new? Then it's bad.

"But the established fiction..." is just a roundabout appeal to tradition. We can do better.

I legit don't understand your perspective here. On the one hand you are saying controller ranger should have exclusive access to bombs, but on the other hand you are saying everyone having access to rituals is good.

To me it looks like you have a goal -- elevate martials, screw casters -- and are deciding what is "good" and "bad" design based on that point of view, rather than a broader and more consistent design intent.

But it is also entirely possible that I am not getting what you are saying, so I don't want to come off as combative in case I missed some nuance.

 

[Guest 7042500]

If you have fun playing a class, the class is ipso facto balanced.

 

[Cadence]

If I am not enjoying you playing a class, the class is ipso facto unbalanced?

 

[MGibster]

If I am not enjoying you playing a class, the class is ipso facto unbalanced?

I get enough grief from Snarf when I play a bard, I don't need you harshing my mellow too!

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, and let's not forget the absolute innundation of new spells into the game. AD&D had what, a quarter of the spell choices of 2e and 3e had twice as many again. And that's just in the PHB.

Even though I've adopted a bunch of UA and 2e-era spells into my games (plus a few bespoke spells researched and developed by PCs over the years), it's still the old standbys that get cast 90+% of the time.