D&D 5E Basic already surprising us.

[Mistwell]

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.

Well I was talking about the core Basic game and not the Starter Set specifically, but OK we can narrow the topic for a moment to focus on the Starter Set.

I think you're inserting your values into it. You're assuming the inequal game (in the way we're talking about) is inherently not a fun experience unless you have system mastery. That's not a factual statement. Thousands and thousands of people learned D&D using the TSR B/X or related systems, which had that sort of inequality in them. They didn't have system mastery, but had a ton of fun with the game. So it's not a fact that such games are not fun without system mastery. That's a matter of preference. And playtester data, along with historical data, seem to indicate that traditional TSR-like experience works well for a starter set. It's not the only thing that can work well for a starter set, but it's one thing that does seem to work well for it.

 

[Mistwell]

You edited while I was responding, so here is a response to your edited portion

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.

It could, but we seem to be confusing Starter and Basic game. I am talking about the core Basic game reflecting that traditional TSR-style inequality, with optional modifications to that implied setting in the PHB and DMG. I agree we could remove that traditional style entirely (which makes magic overtake and become more powerful than mundane, peaking at higher levels) and give options for that, but I'm arguing it's better for the game to go with tradition for the core and then options to alter from the tradition - we know the tradition sells well, and is a big draw, and was preferred in playtesting data, and has strong historical data supporting it. It's why I think it should be the Basic core game.

 

[Sadras]

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.

Fine call it superheroism or herculean whatever - don't get caught up on the word here. You know exactly what I mean. The wizards on the other hand are mere mortals, same mortal (human) limitations, that have uncovered the intricacies of magic. If you have jumping Hulk as a fighter you have broken that "realism" what you have now is a person of superhuman strength and ablities - which begs the question are you playing Marvel Superheroes or medieval fantasy?

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.

In Basic, if your DM allows, one may swap an increase in attribute points for feats. What if in the DMG there is a module which allows one to swap additional attacks or class features for Herculean Feats?

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.

Really? The above ridiculous example is matched by my own. What if you are in a mega-dungeon where the height of the walls are only 20 feet, and you're unable to use your maximum Hulk capabilities to jump really far without going through the level above you or how about you're playing an urban campaign and you there is a law forbidding 20th level Hulks from drinking Gummyberry juice and leaping all over the place causing damage to the sewerage system below? ...

And if you do not play with Concentration, Spell Interruption, Material Components... why are you complaining?
You might as well remove Arcane Recovery and we will call it even.

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.

The wizard who swings a sword he is not proficient in is using the weapon to its full potential?

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.

I never mentioned anything about dumping magical items on fighters. I also not a fan of magical weapons flying out of lakes and enemies hilts to land up in Herculean PC class just because of his level. I'd rather have legacy weapons becoming attuned to a fighter's grasp instantly or calling out telepathically to fighters of the same "alignment" when they are within a certain range.

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."

Spells are not a default assumption either, a wizard only gains two per level as he rises in levels. I'd rather they make followers and carving out a dominion modular than forced. What happens when the wizard earnestly invests efforts into gaining land, buildings and henchmen and you as DM allow it? Then you have the Fighter's player thinking what is the point if everyone can get this, henchman and land ain't that special anymore.

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.

Absolutely agree with this statement. Spell components, spell/ritual research can go a long way in that. You could even have the Fighter being paid by the Wizard to help him track down necessary components for a new spell...etc

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

The Hulk is a superhero. The wizard is not a superhero. He is governed by the mechanics of his race. He abides by the laws and limitations of magic. Giving a D&D character superhero powers means you move the game to mythical or supernatural proportions - definitely not centred around medieval Europe (perhaps Ancient Europe).

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.

Fair enough. But the imbalance style of play is a popular style of play for the last 30 years of the hobby, so it has to remain in BASIC. The power-balance style and superheroic feats you are looking for are best served as modules which can either replace or be added on to features of the classes.
5e is supposed to be inclusionary due to the modules, not necessarily due because of the Basic Game.

I imagine we more than likely agree with most things (a few bits here and there we might have a difference on opinion), but I fear our biggest disagreement is where Basic should have drawn the line.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think you're inserting your values into it. You're assuming the inequal game (in the way we're talking about)

In the way you're talking about, it might not matter too much in a starter set or basic game, since it kicks in at higher levels that presumably won't be part of new players' first experiences. It might still put players off the game, later, of course.

is inherently not a fun experience unless you have system mastery. That's not a factual statement. Thousands and thousands of people learned D&D using the TSR B/X or related systems, which had that sort of inequality in them.

Millions, actually. D&D, at the height of the fad, was out-selling monopoly. /Only a fraction of them kept playing./ I'm not saying that conclusively proves that they were driven away by the balance problems that cropped up in early D&D (both encounter balance/playability issues at very low level, and the class imbalances you advocate at high level, with a narrow 'sweet spot' in-between). But it certainly doesn't support your conjecture that imbalance is perfectly good at retaining new players.

But the imbalance style of play is a popular style of play for the last 30 years of the hobby

The hobby, itself, has been extremely unpopular for the last 30 years or so, ever since the fad in the 80s passed. So, 'popular' among people pursuing very unpopular hobby...

 

[Tormyr]

I think the classes are more balanced than they get credit for, but while each equally gets opportunities to contribute, the contributions are weighted or concentrated in different areas. Some of the classes are more focused in how they contribute, but the opportunities are there. While the wizard has lots of utility, after those spell slots are burned up, that's it until a rest. Fighters get more weapon and armor options, multiple attacks and withstanding damage. If a player wants something more than that, they could easily go toward a Paladin, Ranger or Monk when they come available, but the Fighter has its own purpose too, and adding in additional special stuff can imbalance contribution to the party in the fighter's favor.

I also think that use of analogies, while helpful, can sometimes be off target. This can especially be the case where the analogy comes from a different fictional universe. Sparrowhawk, Gandalf and Elminster I can see as being roughly equal, but Miracle Max is not really much more than a simple alchemist. Hercules also does not seem to fit with them. He is the son of a God, and his strength score probably should be 20-30 (probably somewhere in the middle). I cannot really see giving that to a player, but I could see a player being Arren, Eomer, Minsc, Lancelot, Inigo Montoya or any other great fighter fighting alonside Sparrowhawk, Gandalf or Elminster. While the wizards listed are more flashy, the stories make just as much use of the fighters listed.

Each of the players at my table is playing a different class, and they are all contributing to the story moving forward. If the Fighter was suddenly able to achieve god-like strength, that would probably skew the contributions in her favor. But an interesting combination of background and martial archetype could make her more interesting to play in the later levels (including things like expertise dice or whatever else is in the PHB). But her primary contribution would still be hitting often, hitting hard and absorbing damage. (It helps that she is a slightly deranged elf fighter who revels in the fight and has a sword that whispers encouragement to her when she is killing.)

 

[Mistwell]

Millions, actually. D&D, at the height of the fad, was out-selling monopoly. /Only a fraction of them kept playing./ I'm not saying that conclusively proves that they were driven away by the balance problems that cropped up in early D&D (both encounter balance/playability issues at very low level, and the class imbalances you advocate at high level, with a narrow 'sweet spot' in-between). But it certainly doesn't support your conjecture that imbalance is perfectly good at retaining new players.

That's a bit revisionist. People bought the original game and continued to play it in droves, until the fad of the game ended and they got older and had less time for hobbies (and therefore had to choose between different ones - with people leaving RPGs in general for those other ones like video games). There is no indication that the inequalities of the traditional TSR games ever turned away droves of people from the game. Survey data from back then, and survey data from now, both concur those were attractive qualities for the game to a substantial number of people.

The hobby, itself, has been extremely unpopular for the last 30 years or so, ever since the fad in the 80s passed. So, 'popular' among people pursuing very unpopular hobby...

Popular during that 80s fad, and popular now. So if you're going to choose a Basic core game to go with, the one with the data backing up that style as popular then and now is a good one. It's certainly one fair choice for WOTC to be making.

What exactly is the objection to the Basic game having this type of traditional inequality and giving options in the PHB and DMG to alter it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

You edited while I was responding, so here is a response to your edited portion

Yeah, I do that a lot. Bad habit.

I am talking about the core Basic game reflecting that traditional TSR-style inequality, with optional modifications to that implied setting in the PHB and DMG. I agree we could remove that traditional style entirely and give options for that, but I'm arguing it's better for the game to go with tradition for the core and then options to alter from the tradition

I understand that it's hard for D&D to appeal to anything but tradition, because it did appeal to nothing but tradition for so very long. But the appeal to tradition strategy, at best, consolidates past fans.

 

[Mistwell]

I understand that it's hard for D&D to appeal to anything but tradition, because it did appeal to nothing but tradition for so very long. But the appeal to tradition strategy, at best, consolidates past fans.

How so, if there are options to alter than assumption in the PHB and DMG?

You have to choose either traditional or modern for the core Basic game, as it is (with very few exceptions) the option-less stripped down version of the game. So which do you choose - the one with a lot of historical and current data supporting it's success, or the one with historical and current data suggesting it's closer to being a minority preference for past and current players? I'd say you choose the one with more data suggesting stronger success, and make the other one optional.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is no indication that the inequalities of the traditional TSR games ever turned away droves of people from the game. Survey data from back then, and survey data from now, both concur those were attractive qualities for the game to a substantial number of people

I do not believe anyone has ever produced such survey results. You may be reading something into the few vague stats from the (highly-self-selected) playtest surveys that WotC has alluded to. (Or, hey, you may have access to some real data - if so, let's see it!) And, I didn't say that the fact that the vast majority of people who every played D&D no longer play it (or, at least, no longer buy it, since it's never again moved units like it did in the fad years) /proves/ that was imbalance that drove them away from it. Just that it's not support for the idea that imbalance has successfully retained them.

How so, if there are options to alter than assumption in the PHB and DMG?

Because potential new fans aren't likely to make it that far.

 

[KarinsDad]

A high level fighter should be flat out immune to most effects that would cripple or kill others. She should be strong enough to rip the arm off of a troll and shatter admantite shackles. 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. She shouldn't have any trouble turning a village into a powerful miltia, some of which will volunteer as her personal followers. 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. A fighter should be able to outrun just about anything, and when they jump, the main limit should be their sight, not their legs.

Sure sounds like Wuxia to me. Wuxia means "martial hero". Which has morphed into the Chinese equivalent of super heroes.

All that said...you can have a fighter that does all of this and you still wouldn't break the game. All these things and more can already be easily recreated with spellcasting. None of them needs to actually translate to a significant increase in the fighter's combat ability. I don't want the fighter to be so good at fighting that they make the other classes redundant in combat. I just don't want to be the bmx bandit.

I think the issue is that D&D did not originally have fighters like that. It might be a core of other fantasy products, but not D&D. It has been added with certain splat books like Epic Level Handbook, but it's not really been a feature of 1st through 20th level play shy of some add on product.

Also, there has been "super powers" by non-spell casting PCs like Monks (e.g. not taking falling damage and such). But historically, those PCs did not have the fighting ability of fighters.

Having fighters be the best at fighting and giving them supernatural powers feels too much like having super heroes and doesn't balance out PCs that do have some spells, but are semi-fighters such as rangers or paladins or even bards.

And it's not like fighters cannot be Eldritch Knights, or multiclass, or use feats to gain extra-ordinary powers.


Interestingly enough, I do not see you arguing for wizards to be more capable at 1st level because those darn fighters have better AC, better hit points, do more damage, can fight for dozens of rounds every day, and can even heal themselves.