D&D 5E Basic already surprising us.

[Tony Vargas]

The problem is that some of us want magic to be like it has been in many editions of D&D.

Yes, the problem with trying to make D&D a balanced game (4e) or a game able to support many 'styles' (5e) is that for 34 years it was an imbalanced game that forced one style on it's players (who, in response, either house-ruled the unholy heck out of it, went on to other games, or just didn't take up the hobby). After 34 years of filtering for fans who tolerate caster supremacy and pragmatic low fantasy, it's hardly surprising that there is resistance to anything else.

That said, it's a problem that must be overcome.

 

[Sadras]

And no, I don't want wuxia.

You sure, your examples sure sound like wuxia to me. I've pointed them out, below, in case I have misunderstood.

I'm more concerned with the extremely static nature of the fighter and rogue. They're the same as they level up, just with bigger numbers. Going from +5 to +11 with your athletics checks over the course of 20 levels is just embarrassing.

Well 5e uses "bounded accuracy" so I don't think its fair to knock the system for giving you +6 bonus on Athletic checks.

She should be strong enough to rip the arm off of a troll and shatter admantite shackles.

Wuxia IMO. A wizard casts a spell, sure it is more powerful but it has limitations - finding the spell, learning the spell, components, range, duration, concentration...etc
What you are speaking about is an innate ability, doesn't sound all that limiting. Once again this option may be included in the DMG where you swop out an attack for a Wuxia power. Thing is BASIC should not have wuxia-style powers (and it doesn't). It's BASIC.

Legendary magical items like Exacaliber and Gae Bulg should be drawn to her, and only someone like her should be able to use them to their full potential.

This is a great idea, but should rather be a requirement of the magical item rather than the fighter class.

She shouldn't have any trouble turning a village into a powerful miltia, some of which will volunteer as her personal followers.

This can be done during roleplay - you can argue the same about a Rogue and his Thieves Guild, or a Cleric and his Church moving into position of power (Bishop, Archbishop...etc), or a Wizard and the Mages Guild of the Land - apprentices seeking him out...ANY CLASS.

Unlike the wizard who needs to spend most of their treasure on studying magic just to keep up, the fighter should have plenty of gold for parties, castles, and a wide array of magical items.

I've lost you here. Why can't a wizard find treasure, gold, abandoned castles, magical items, spells through adventure? Is the fighter the only one able to? What am I misunderstanding? How would you bake this sentence as part of the class features?

A fighter should be able to outrun just about anything, and when they jump, the main limit should be their sight, not their legs.

Sounds like Hulk and therefore Wuxia, refer to my above post regarding limitations.

All that said...you can have a fighter that does all of this and you still wouldn't break the game

The reason they are not included is not because they "break" the game, its because they limit a large play style, right out the box.

 

[Emerikol]

Yes, the problem with trying to make D&D a balanced game (4e) or a game able to support many 'styles' (5e) is that for 34 years it was an imbalanced game that forced one style on it's players (who, in response, either house-ruled the unholy heck out of it, went on to other games, or just didn't take up the hobby). After 34 years of filtering for fans who tolerate caster supremacy and pragmatic low fantasy, it's hardly surprising that there is resistance to anything else.

That said, it's a problem that must be overcome.

I don't agree with any of your "value" judgments on balance or whatever but given you do of course why not let the market decide.

My theory is that the traditional D&D approach is popular enough to support itself as a hobby. Your approach may work as well. All you'll do though by "overcoming the problem" is drive out half the playerbase. If you could really win in some total world wide way in every single game, you'd just drive those same people out of the hobby completely. So your approach would essentially half the playerbase for roleplaying games world wide. Is that your goal?

It's a game. If someone like me enjoys playing a 3e fighter then let me. I'm not hurting myself honest.

 

[sidonunspa]

THIS! Nice examples.

It's the inequality that rankles. I like low fantasy, I like high fantasy. But I want the players at the table to be playing the same game.

they are...

it's called D&D..... it's been this way from 1st edition..

wan't a fighter with "magical" abilities? create some feats (easy to do), let them go eldrich knight, or have each fighter become a "paragon" of X or Y by 20th level (Paragon of <name of god of strength>) and give them +20 + Advantage to any attribute die roll using it, maybe give all fighters Ki monk like abilities (which is what your asking for btw... want a super fighter? see monk)

But the fighter in 5e is damn good at what he/she does... they become blurs of steel, they can strike down most people before others can act (+8 if built right), and can do amazing feats of physical power... without magic...

want to see a fighter shine? have the players walk into a dead magic area.. or have a battle, non-stop, for 6 encounters in a row... the caster will be down to cantrips, the fighter keeps going..

 

[Savage Wombat]

If we're talking about "why are fighters nerfed", I'll just add that I suspect D&D has gone a little too far in making sure special powers are always useful. A properly armed fighter is reliable in most combats, but has trouble with special circumstances (like fliers). Why shouldn't a wizard have to deal with magic-immune monsters, or rogues with sneak-attack proof critters once in a while?

I'll need to see the full 5e MM to have more of an opinion on how 5e handles this.

 

[Wrathamon]

How did this turn into a fighter vs wizard thread?

 

[Mort]

they are...

it's called D&D..... it's been this way from 1st edition..

Actually, it was greatly accentuated in 3rd and dialed back a lot in 4e (to the dislike of many). I actually like many of the things done with the mage in 5e, concentration is a great mechanic. I just disagree that fighters shouldn't get some of the mythic love as they go up in level.

wan't a fighter with "magical" abilities? create some feats (easy to do), let them go eldrich knight, or have each fighter become a "paragon" of X or Y by 20th level (Paragon of ) and give them +20 + Advantage to any attribute die roll using it, maybe give all fighters Ki monk like abilities (which is what your asking for btw... want a super fighter? see monk)

But the fighter in 5e is damn good at what he/she does... they become blurs of steel, they can strike down most people before others can act (+8 if built right), and can do amazing feats of physical power... without magic...

Suggesting house rules is great, but that's not really the point here.

And the fighter is OK in combat, no question, but so is everyone else. Outside? Uh oh.

want to see a fighter shine? have the players walk into a dead magic area.. or have a battle, non-stop, for 6 encounters in a row... the caster will be down to cantrips, the fighter keeps going..

Dead magic zones are kind of tacky IMO, and unless used sparingly way to obvious.

As for caster being down to can trips but the fighter is going strong? Great in theory, but the fighter tends to run out of HPs first.

All this said, I actually like much of the direction I'm seeing in 5e it's kind of a 2e, 3e, 4e mix in a good way. I also can see why they're doing what they are doing with the core. They want people to look at it and think "yep, that's D&D!"

I just want fighters to get some more love, particularly at high levels. If I have to wait for it, that's OK. So far Mearls has done a great job, and he likes fighters - we'll have to see.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't agree with any of your "value" judgments on balance or whatever but given you do of course why not let the market decide.

The market /has/ decided. It's decided it wants more than just the old-school OneTrueWay of imbalance and caster supremacy. It's just that a segment of the market wants /only/ that, and begrudges the rest anything else.

That's the problem you helpfully identified, that's the problem that was embodied by the edition war, and 5e must overcome that problem if it is to achieve it's stated goals.

My theory is that the traditional D&D approach is popular enough to support itself as a hobby.

I get that you want the game to cater to your OneTrueWay, and that you believe that it'll be successful doing so. Afterall, it was successful doing so in the past. If we were still in the past, you would unquestionably be right.

It may well be that's all 5e is going to do, and that it's kumbaya goals of 'inclusiveness' and 'modularity' were just marketing spin and vaporware.

If someone like me enjoys playing a 3e fighter then let me.

No one could stop you, since the 3e fighter is sitting there in the SRD, just in case you ever want to play a tier 4 class, instead of the tier 1 classes whose superiority you fought so hard for in the edition war.

 

[Sadras]

Yes, the problem with trying to make D&D a balanced game (4e) or a game able to support many 'styles' (5e) is that for 34 years it was an imbalanced game that forced one style on it's players (who, in response, either house-ruled the unholy heck out of it, went on to other games, or just didn't take up the hobby). After 34 years of filtering for fans who tolerate caster supremacy and pragmatic low fantasy, it's hardly surprising that there is resistance to anything else.

That said, it's a problem that must be overcome.

It will be, I'd bet on it. And even if the exact module is not there for you in the DMG, the basic guidelines to improvise to the level of wuxia/superheroism one prefers will be.

In fact over a year ago, I said the skeleton of D&D (BASIC) has already been established which we all know the 'imbalanced class system'.
That would be BASIC D&D and is - and tacking on modules from the DMG and supplements would make it a "balanced class system" depending on your table's preferences.

I said as much then, its much easier to balance from an imbalanced system (since the skeleton was there already) than from a balanced system to make it imbalanced. Not many agreed with me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I said as much, its much easier to balance from an imbalanced system (since the skeleton was there already) than from a balanced system to make it imbalanced. Not many agreed with me then.

I can see why. It's very difficult to balance an imbalanced game (folks tried for decades with D&D and didn't get it remotely right until the re-designed it from the ground up), it's ridiculously easy to 'break' a balanced one - power creep being only one example of how it can happen almost organically, even when you're actively trying to avoid it.

That said, I could see how a designer might cleverly design a balanced system, then slice away portions of it to create an imbalanced-to-order 'Basic' system, only to 'add' back the excised bits later. Nothing in the structure of 5e that I've seen in the playtest or Basic suggests that, but I could see how it might theoretically be done.