D&D 5E Basic already surprising us.

[Thaumaturge]

Well damn, good find. I was right all along. I hate when people make me feel dumb when I'm obviously the smartest guy in the room.

I have family in town all week, or I would have come to your rescue sooner.

And no one can make you feel dumb except yourself, dummy.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Agamon]

And no one can make you feel dumb except yourself, dummy.

That's...a good point. Should have stuck to my guns in that other thread instead of kowtowing to the unwashed masses. Lesson learned. Now I'm even smarter! Look out world!

 

[Capricia]

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

It's not wuxia because by definition wuxia is chinese-themed. It's possible to play a high-power, high-level martial adventurer and still not base your character on anything asian. Declaring something wuxia is an attempt to narrow its scope down to a niche, to dismiss it as not the "traditional, and therefore best and right" way, to make it something foreign to your personal, idealized anglo-saxon european fantasy that doesn't include heroes like Beowulf but does include wizards that are much more powerful and versatile than any character from myth and legends.

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

I like bounded accuracy a lot. It's one of the better parts of the game. But it's an absolute failure when you combine it with the fact that after level nine, the ONLY thing a fighter gets are bigger numbers.

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.

This is false. At-will abilities can still be extremely limited. Say you have a rogue that is able to cast Knock at-will. Then you go through a half dozen forest adventures where that ability comes up zero times. The rogue's Knock ability was worthless. On the other hand, the wizard who had Knock prepared was able to use his spell slots to cast a dozen other different spells on those adventures. It's about supply and demand. Abilities like removing curses, curing poison, opening doors, escaping out of shackles, etc, are all dependent on the situation. That's their main limitation, and it's one the wizard DOES NOT HAVE. With 5e more than any other edition, spellcasting is so incredibly flexible that you can convert your daily resources on the fly to whatever the situation calls for. What I suggested--that fighters become really strong as they level up--is limited because the number of situations that require feats of brute strength are by their nature limited. As for the idea that things like components, range, and duration are a meaningful, that's malarkey. Those aren't meaningful at all because they are still new options. That's like saying "Sure I have a car and you're stuck on a tricycle. But this one doesn't even have spinning rims." And here's the thing. By default, with no modding or anything, every single spell that wotc releases is going to make the wizard more powerful. Getting those new spells means they can just customize their loadout in new ways. By contrast, if you introduce a new fighter subclass...you don't get to keep your old one. You only ever get one.

Every economy, including 5e's resource economy, is dictated by supply and demand. You can have an infinite supply of "swings my sword", but that doesn't mean there's going to be an infinite demand.

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

And so far, the only magic items we have are from the starter set. And the only ones that limit who can use them to their full potential...are the wizard staffs. Making it a part of magic items mean that it's not a part of the fighter. It means that the fighter is weak, BUT a gm can shore up those weaknesses by going out of his way to dump magic items on him. That's not good design.

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.

Here's the thing about that. It depends on dm fiat. When you relegate those things to the GM's domain, that means that it's not the default assumption, means that the fighter has to ask for it as a handout. Should you really tell a player "Oh, that class is fine. The GM Gary will totally give you all kinds of loot and followers."

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?

The idea here is that being a wizard has a cost. The devotion to unlocking the secrets of the universe shouldn't come cheap. So that when a party raids a dragon's hoard, the wizard is going to need to spend a healthy chunk of his share on new books and components and rituals that eventually get him to the next level, while the fighter is free to spend his more freely.

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

The Hulk is not wuxia. Using wuxia like that is just a dogwhistle.

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.

If you want to play a realistic peak-human fighter like Inigo Montoya, there is level one through four. If you wanted to play with your high-level wizard friend and still be grounded, just stay at level four.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I'm OK with inequality of this nature. In fact, to me it is desirable. If I want more equality for that sort of thing, I will play a different version of the game. But for this version of the game, I want the inequality of the nature you guys are referring to.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm OK with inequality of this nature. In fact, to me it is desirable.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[Mistwell]

Thank you for your honesty.

Do you feel it is self-evident that equality of the type you're talking about is desirable? Or, do you think it's OK to have the Basic game be inequal in that way, but have options in the PHB and DMG to make it more equal?

 

[Capricia]

Do you feel it is self-evident that equality of the type you're talking about is desirable? Or, do you think it's OK to have the Basic game be inequal in that way, but have options in the PHB and DMG to make it more equal?

You want things to be unequal. If the classes were balanced, but your GM made sure that wizards were always double the level of the other classes, would that be okay with you?

 

[Mistwell]

You want things to be unequal. If the classes were balanced, but your GM made sure that wizards were always double the level of the other classes, would that be okay with you?

I didn't say I want them to be unequal in general. I said I want them to be unequal in the way we're talking about. Which is that higher level Magic is notably more powerful than Mundane, and Wizard is Magic while Fighter is Mundane (baring magic items or divine intervention or another outside force).

That to me is a more meaningful implied setting for the Basic core game (which I think should cater to the strengths of the traditional game). I also want the PHB and DMG to offer options that alter that implied setting so that Mundane can be as powerful as Magic, and/or so that Fighters can be Magic, so DMs have the tools to adjust the implied setting as they see fit for their own games.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you feel it is self-evident that equality of the type you're talking about is desirable?

Balance - which is not the exact same as equality - is certainly a desirable trait for any game to have, in general.

Inequality is easily achieved in even a carefully-balanced class/level game by either deleting class features or levels from the dis-favored class. For instance, if you want the fighter to be more clearly inferior, you could take away his extra attacks, or cap his level at 4, or (thanks to bounded accuracy) start a favored class at level 11 and dis-favored ones at level 1, or any of a variety of other things that will result in the desired clear inequality.

Balance, OTOH, is a trickier target.

I don't need to go out looking for an imbalanced game, even if I want one imbalanced in a very specific way to produce some specific inequality, because I can always introduce the desired inequalities into an existing game very, very easily. OTOH, a better-balanced game might be worth a look - because improving balance is tough, and perfect balance is impossible - so there's always room for improvement.

Or, do you think it's OK to have the Basic game be inequal in that way, but have options in the PHB and DMG to make it more equal?

A starter set is probably the worst place to have severe imbalances, or 'inequalities' that aren't clearly spelled out. If a starter set is going to hook new players, it needs to actually provide a fun experience without requiring the system-mastery to recognize and leverage an imbalanced system, just for one instance.

Inequality of the type you want - manifesting only at higher level - could be part of the main game, but left out of the Basic game through the simple expedient of Basic only covering lower levels. Like basic (1-3) or B/X (1-7, IIRC) did.

I didn't say I want them to be unequal in general. I said I want them to be unequal in the way we're talking about. Which is that higher level Magic is notably more powerful than Mundane, and Wizard is Magic while Fighter is Mundane

You could achieve that trivially in almost any system. In Hero, you'd just give 'Magic' character a lot more exp than 'Mundane' ones (in GURPS you'd also give them more staring points). In 4e, you could make a simple rule like "Martial Powers can't be re-trained." That would effectively take away all Paragon and Epic-level encounter and daily attacks powers, sucking a lot of drama & power out of the martial classes. Or, just as easy, but more extreme "all encounter & daily powers with the Martial keyword are banned."

The only trick when running profound, openly imbalanced options like this is getting anyone to play the disfavored character type. You might have to introduce mundane NPCs, if you can't find masochistic enough players to do so (which is not out of the question, there /are/ players like that, who feel somehow ennobled as 'real roleplayers' when they willfully choose to play a character that can't pull it's own weight). That's why imbalanced games so often have 'trap options,' that look good on the surface, but which system-masters can identify as inferior - that way you get the desired mix of superior and inferior characters.

 

[Tush Hog]

How did this turn into a fighter vs wizard thread?

The Internets?

I've noticed that most threads I find interesting at the beginning, devolve into something ...less interesting.