D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Oofta]

I think that's partially it. But it's also that many gamers have attached the label "mundane" to martials (especially the fighter) and just can't get past them doing anything they can't immediately conceive of as "normal."

Even action movie physics seems a bridge too far for many people, when it comes to the fighter - not the wizard!

Have you played D&D? Do you really think half the stuff high level fighters do and survive would be physically possible?

 

[Mannahnin]

That depends on a simple question: who determines how the character affected reacts; the effect or the effected?

Now I have no problem with a warrior having effects that provide debuffs, but I have a MAJOR issue with abilities that control thier actions. My cowardly rogue doesn't give two spits about honor, so any ability that says he's going to rush up and engage the warrior in melee is mind control; you are now playing my character. If it's magic (like compelled duel) at least I can say the magic overrode his personality by charming him, but with a purely "nonmagical" effect? No.

The other issue is that any effect that you give a PC is, in theory, usable against a PC. So really think of you want a warrior to nonmagically cause your barbarian to throw down his weapon in surrender, your wizard to charge a knight with his quarterstaff in melee, or your cleric to void his bowels and run away after seeing the rogue get critted. Likewise, I don't care how persuasive your charming con man is, I don't like the idea he can override my character's personality and beliefs to be taken advantage of. Because you're crossing the line from me playing my character how I feel is in character and going into me running a toon in a game.

Martials should get nice toys. Playing my PC (or NPCs) for me shouldn't be one of them.

I understand your objection.

I do think it's within the reasonable boundaries of a fun game for PCs' actions NOT to always be under their own control, as we see with charm effects, and with both magical AND non-magical Fear effects in D&D. Other games allow more "character override", but I understand that traditionally in D&D, only magic (and fear) are generally able to circumvent perfect player control over their character.

I don't think it has to be that way, though. The distinction between magic and mundane here is pretty arbitrary. Real people, and more relevantly, characters in fantasy fiction, are CERTAINLY subject to mental influence and social trickery. Being pressured or scared or tricked into doing something foolish or non-optimal is frequently the premise of good stories or twists in stories. I don't think letting D&D simulate some of those things more would be inherently bad or wrong, or "playing anyone's character for them".

I think it's possible to design/write these effects in such a way that they'd respect and honor established character traits by, for example, granting advantage to saves against out of character actions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's the way.

Let everyone have fun instead of taking other people's toys.

Or remove wizards altogether, removing the source of most objections to other classes getting nice things.

Wouldn't that mean that wizard players no longer get nice things? Nobody likes their chosen class being less effective, or (as you suggest) non-existent. Many wizards hated what 4e did to the class when they leveled the playing field (into glass).

Better to elevate the martial if this really is a problem for you. I favor better access to awesome gear, but I know many prefer fighters to be Superman.

 

[Mannahnin]

Have you played D&D? Do you really think half the stuff high level fighters do and survive would be physically possible?

If you believe this and are content with it, what's your objection to them beating Olympic long jumpers, while wearing armor?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not automatically.

Do you buy every product ever advertised? D&D has a DM so if the situation is right the enemy might be demoralized. But if it only applies to the fighter and not, say the warlock that just summoned a demon to eat the boss, then it's a supernatural fighter ability. I don't want that.

1) No one said 'automatically', which magic mind control also doesn't do.

2) Automatic reactions is something you have a whole section of your nervous system for. IF you have never automatically reacted to something, consult a physician.

 

[Oofta]

That depends on a simple question: who determines how the character affected reacts; the effect or the effected?

Now I have no problem with a warrior having effects that provide debuffs, but I have a MAJOR issue with abilities that control thier actions. My cowardly rogue doesn't give two spits about honor, so any ability that says he's going to rush up and engage the warrior in melee is mind control; you are now playing my character. If it's magic (like compelled duel) at least I can say the magic overrode his personality by charming him, but with a purely "nonmagical" effect? No.

Not to mention creatures that don't understand a word you're saying. Telling a pack of wolves that they were raised by cats so they attack you doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wouldn't that mean that wizard players no longer get nice things? Nobody likes their chosen class being less effective, or (as you suggest) non-existent. Many wizards hated what 4e did to the class when they leveled the playing field (into glass).

That's the problem. Wizard players feel that 'being the best forever and no one approaches the throne' is their nice thing.

That or that fighters have to be worse than regular athletes or else they're Superman.

 

[Mannahnin]

Not to mention creatures that don't understand a word you're saying. Telling a pack of wolves that they were raised by cats so they attack you doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sure, but you can conceptualize the taunting/feigned weakness more plausibly if you choose to.

This is the kind of reasoning which resulted in Sneak Attack being ruled useless against golems, undead, oozes, and so forth in 3.x. In 5E we just let the Rogues Sneak Attack everything, and we're (generally) happier for it.

 

[Oofta]

It'd be a pretty trivial thing in terms of game balance was his point, I think.

And you are illustrating his other point that even this minor a power meets with instinctive pushback from folks who conceptualize a Fighter as totally non-magical and bounded by real world physics.

For my part, I am fine with Fighters being bounded by real-world (or action movie-ish) physics at low level, but for better myth/story emulation, I think at high level martials really should be capable of supernatural deeds. This is both perfectly in keeping with folklore and faerie tales, and would better balance the classes.

I don't mind my PC being James Bond, I don't want them to be The Hulk. There's a pretty clear distinction between action movie logic and superhero movie logic to me.

 

[HammerMan]

Not as much as you would think.

Humans are a lot stronger than we're really capable of exerting because of our stamina and pain threshhold. If you max those plus strength, you can do a lot more than seems possible. Same with Vibranium, energy absorbing shield + max human reflexes and the skill the angle the shield to deflect equals an amazingly hard defense.

I think first avenger did a good job at looking human max... when he held a helicopter I kinda was like "really" and when he went toe to toe with thanos I was like "when did he get that super of str again?"