Search results

Accidently posted before finished. I'm sort of indifferent to mapping abilities directly to in-character abilities and not. I could go either way. I do think abstract abilities are one way to give martials more interesting abilities though. What we have now mostly (although D&D is fuzzy on...

I'm sort of indifferent to mapping abilities directly to in-character abilities and not. I could go either way. I do think abstract abilities are one way to give martials more interesting abilities though.

Personally I think they should have just gone all in and explicitly made these powers abstractions of in game things. (which they probably were anyway) I know some people don't like that, but it solves the problem for me. The in game Fighter doesn't know any of these powers per se. They...

2e was the peak of my D&D playing and certainly still love it. That said, the designers just made stuff that they thought was cool. My favorite example is the swashbuckler kit from Complete Thieves. You get Fighter THACO and rapier in exchange for lower thief skill points. Other kits...

I'd say 4e was it's own thing. It is high level magic but put that stuff into rituals as a party resource. Fighters in 4e are surprisingly mundane (minus Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) with a few exceptions that aren't really that crazy. They mostly attack with weapons, mark, and inflict...

There's a disconnect for me. You don't think the problem is very severe. But going from a 20th level 3 Fighter 1 Wizard party to a 20th level 1 Druid, 1 Cleric, 2 Wizard Party makes the game much more difficult to handle? That's part of the severity.

Didn't take it that way. To be clear, my preference outside of this thread and assumptions is to take spellcasters down, especially in breadth / versatility but less in power, and bring martials up -- both a class with more complexity, utility and power. But I would also be pretty ok with...

I will stop circling after this. I don't know what Brindlewood is but I think the situation would be: Brindle now has a bunch of tank combat (Wizards). I know you don't like that and want to return to the Brindle without tank combat (if it ever existed). That is a fine conversation to have...

Exactly. 5e D&D is clearly supers and mythical already. Is that an issue? I'd say yes but let's leave that out of a conversation that is about assuming magic/casters stay the same, then what sort of martial needs to exist to be a peer at high levels.

That's not the current discussion though? That belongs in the "let's bring D&D more in line with the SS genre and talk about an overhaul of magic to do so as a start. then we can go back to martial under these new parameters". It's a good topic but not what the majority of people have been...

As said, forget the Fighter. This is an entirely new class with martial flavor. Buy yes, that is the point. And creating the mythic martial that is balanced with the caster will let the "free markets" figure it out so to speak. Perhaps at tables where people have the experience where...

If you can do this at the design level not the table norms level then please post them. I would like to use them in my games.

I've said I agree with you that high level casters are not good design. I've also said assume they remain for this exercise. Since today people can (and do) play all caster parties at higher levels, no one has explained however how adding a mythic martial that is no more powerful or versatile...

I mean if after introducing the Mythic Martial the Fighter became obsolete but the Wizard didn't that would sort of justify the whole thing right? If that is what people are worried about, then that is just a version of "I like the disparity and want to keep it". If there isn't a disparity...

There's no table turning here. Here's the gist: "I don't see a problem. The current Fighter is fine playing along the Wizard for me and my table" "Ok, we do have a problem and it would be better if there was a separate class mythic martial that could emulate more of what we want. We'll make...

Forget the Fighter. Keep it in the game as is. I'm pretty sure we've established that most of us want a separate class that fits a different narrative archetype (mythic martial) and is no more powerful or versatile than the current Wizard. Also from what I can tell could be in a splat book...

I don't understand as well. But it seems like it's gotten to the point where everyone needs to post their assumptions at the top of every post. I agree that busted casters aren't good. But I believe the majority that posted over the past day have been working under the assumptions: 1)...

Yeah, I think if everything else remains the same then adding a mythic martial just somewhat levels the playing field for those that want to be martially and play at high levels next to the current jacked up Wizard. We already have jacked up Wizards which basically violate most fantasy genres...

Sure, as long as it can choose like the WizardsSometimes the Wizard does less damage, sometimes the Wizard does a lot of damage. Plus who are we kidding -- I don't think the mythic martial will ever have the range of utility and versatility that the Wizard has. Just trying to get closer so...

What genre problem? That the superhero like martial shouldn't be in the game at high levels? This is all predicated on spellcasters remaining the same. D&D has chosen a supers like high level magic user that is more like Dr. Strange than any fantasy archtypes -- extreme power...