I'm not saying that magic is not powerful. It is, obviously. I simply disagree with the idea that casters are far and beyond more powerful, that a fighter is pointless or needs to become yet another caster in all but name to compete. The game wouldn't be D&D without magic. But if someone can cast teleport in the party, why does that make my fighter less and not just different?
I would say that there's nothing wrong with the fighter being unable to teleport, per se.
The issue is, as I see it, that the fighter is mechanically enabled to hit things.
The wizard, however, can do well in all aspects of the game, including hitting things. I'm not interested in debating whether the wizard is better or worse at hitting things, unless you think that the fighter so vastly outclasses the wizard at hitting things that it easily equals the wizards power and versatility.
Let's say that fighters got a few extra perks at high levels (11+).
A capable mercenary company at their beck and call, which doesn't require upkeep.
Maybe the ability to craft a few empowered items from trophies taken from powerful slain foes.
Keep in mind that you're free to engage with these perks or ignore them, as you prefer
Would that in any way impinge upon your enjoyment of the fighter? (And if so, why?)
Well, sure - that's using the spell as intended, even though it's a good use of it. Using the spell for its intended purpose but applied just right? That's great.
But, IME "creative" use of a spell means trying to go outside those boundaries (for ex. I can't count how many players in earlier editions tried to use the light spell as a "blind" spell). And that's usually a step too far for me. I refuse to have D&D magic, which is 100% reliable ALSO be extremely versatile in application. That's just gilding the lily!
I agree about not allowing spells to be used for things that they simply aren't meant to do.
In fairness, in earlier editions the blinding aspect of light was a RAW application. Unless you mean that they were still trying to use light to blind, even in editions where that aspect was removed?
In fairness, in earlier editions the blinding aspect of light was a RAW application. Unless you mean that they were still trying to use light to blind, even in editions where that aspect was removed?
I agree about not allowing spells to be used for things that they simply aren't meant to do.
In fairness, in earlier editions the blinding aspect of light was a RAW application. Unless you mean that they were still trying to use light to blind, even in editions where that aspect was removed?
Interesting, did a quick bit of research and, sure enough, my memory is faulty. Light could be used as a blind spell 2e and prior. Didn't remember that being an actual RAW thing. rest of the point stands though.
Wait what? I get the other points, but this is a complete non sequitur, except in a sense that the gritty rests only stretch the verisimilitude whilst the normal rests shatter it with a sledgehammer.
I’m not saying I agree with that argument, just listing it as a possible issue a reasonable person may have.
If I were to try to do justice to the argument, it may be something like this: if it takes 7 days of rest for me to recover my entire complement of spells, why can’t I recover a smaller number of spells by taking 1 day of rest. Why is it all or nothing? To build this out more. Once per long rest, a 10th level wizard can recover a 5th level spell slot after a 8 hour rest. If I take two days of rest and spend that time studying my spellbook, why can’t I recover a 4th level slot?
Well, sure - that's using the spell as intended, even though it's a good use of it. Using the spell for its intended purpose but applied just right? That's great.
But, IME "creative" use of a spell means trying to go outside those boundaries (for ex. I can't count how many players in earlier editions tried to use the light spell as a "blind" spell). And that's usually a step too far for me. I refuse to have D&D magic, which is 100% reliable ALSO be extremely versatile in application. That's just gilding the lily!
Agree. Light to blind someone? How quaint! I had to deal with 100 abuses of the Shape Water cantrip. Including attempting to use it as Tenser’s floating disk.
I’m not saying I agree with that argument, just listing it as a possible issue a reasonable person may have.
If I were to try to do justice to the argument, it may be something like this: if it takes 7 days of rest for me to recover my entire complement of spells, why can’t I recover a smaller number of spells by taking 1 day of rest. Why is it all or nothing? To build this out more. Once per long rest, a 10th level wizard can recover a 5th level spell slot after a 8 hour rest. If I take two days of rest and spend that time studying my spellbook, why can’t I recover a 4th level slot?
I would say that there's nothing wrong with the fighter being unable to teleport, per se.
The issue is, as I see it, that the fighter is mechanically enabled to hit things.
The wizard, however, can do well in all aspects of the game, including hitting things. I'm not interested in debating whether the wizard is better or worse at hitting things, unless you think that the fighter so vastly outclasses the wizard at hitting things that it easily equals the wizards power and versatility.
Let's say that fighters got a few extra perks at high levels (11+).
A capable mercenary company at their beck and call, which doesn't require upkeep.
A DM can already do that. But the question becomes - why just fighters? What's the justification? Also, how many campaigns is that going to be useful in anyway? It was different when we had 4 distinct classes and the game was more tied to it's wargame roots.
I understand that your examples are just quick brainstorms, so I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that thematically they don't feel like D&D for me or are already plenty of options. The other problem is that there's never much agreement on exactly what should be done. I mentioned this long ago but we go from "just give me a 4E fighter*" to "they should be able to do superhuman feats like jump double the world record long jump" to "they should be mythic heroes that can redirect a river".
I want one class (okay 2 with rogues) that's effective without being overtly supernatural. I think high level fighters are fairly close to Captain America (although it's different genres so it's not an exact comparison). I don't want them to be Pecos Bill who could lasso a twister. The fighter isn't for everyone. Don't break it for those who like it as is.
I find that gritty rest rules help balance things out, but even without them my PC is just one member of the team. A quarterback can't win the game by themselves even if they frequently get the most attention. I have no problem with a fighter being part of a team and I think people dismiss how important they can be.
*I don't care what the label said, they felt supernatural to me.
Aren’t wizards much better at History than Fighters given that History is an Int skill, on Wizards’ class list, and in many cases, makes sense for Wizards to be proficient in?
That comes down to expecting wizards to still fill the skill boots they did in the past & in levelup in o5e where skills work differently. Back in 3.5 fighters had 4+int mod skill points/level while wizards had 3+int mod skill points/level, rogue had 8+int mod for comparison. Levelup grants
Bonus Knowledge
Having a higher Intelligence means you have more knowledge than other characters. During character creation, for each point of your Intelligence modifier above 0 you can choose a skill specialty in one of the following skills (covered in detail page 408): Arcana, Culture, Engineering, History, Nature, Religion. If you are not proficient in any of these skills you can gain proficiency with one, choose an extra language known, or pick a tool proficiency in one artisan’s tool, gaming kit, instrument, or vehicle.
Having a higher Intelligence means having more knowledge than other characters. During character creation, for each point of your Intelligence modifier above 0 you can choose a skill specialty chosen from lore skills (Arcana, Culture, Engineering, History, Nature, Religion). If you are not proficient in any lore skills you either gain proficiency with a lore skill, choose an extra language known, or pick a tool proficiency in one artisan’s tool, gaming kit, instrument, or vehicle.If you lose bonus knowledge due to a decrease in Intelligence, at the Narrator’s discretion you might choose a new bonus knowledge the next time your Intelligence modifier increases (instead of regaining the lost bonus knowledge).
In o5e fighter gets: "Skills: Choose two skills from Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Survival"
Wizard gets: "Skills: Choose two from Arcana, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine, and Religion"
Arcana is pretty much a required nonchoice for a lot of reasons & it's great for knowing things under the arcana umbrella, but two skills that amount to "let me tell bob what he needs to know by way of asking the gm so the gm can tell the entire table what bob needs to know so bob can go off to actively do something cool with that knowledge" is usually a bit much for most players.
Whatever the reasons behind why players choose one skill over a different skill the result is not notably different when trained because history is very much a skill that allows the gm an excuse to infodump knowledge. Either there is something the gm feels the players needs to know & almost any result will shed more than zero light on that something or there isn't but the thing being checked with history is related enough to something that players could know & thus get some detail there too. Unlike getting 20-30 on an athletics check to break shackles lift a portcullis without the winch or whatever there's not any real difference between rolling 10 & getting the info needed & rolling 20-30 & getting the same info the gm wanted to give. If there's not info to be had it doesn't matter how high the end result is
A DM can already do that. But the question becomes - why just fighters? What's the justification? Also, how many campaigns is that going to be useful in anyway? It was different when we had 4 distinct classes and the game was more tied to it's wargame roots.
We already have runecaster. Not quite the same, but very similar depending on how you describe the fluff.
I understand that your examples are just quick brainstorms, so I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that thematically they don't feel like D&D for me or are already plenty of options. The other problem is that there's never much agreement on exactly what should be done. I mentioned this long ago but we go from "just give me a 4E fighter*" to "they should be able to do superhuman feats like jump double the world record long jump" to "they should be mythic heroes that can redirect a river".
I want one class (okay 2 with rogues) that's effective without being overtly supernatural. I think high level fighters are fairly close to Captain America (although it's different genres so it's not an exact comparison). I don't want them to be Pecos Bill who could lasso a twister. The fighter isn't for everyone. Don't break it for those who like it as is.
I find that gritty rest rules help balance things out, but even without them my PC is just one member of the team. A quarterback can't win the game by themselves even if they frequently get the most attention. I have no problem with a fighter being part of a team and I think people dismiss how important they can be.
*I don't care what the label said, they felt supernatural to me.
There are certainly plenty of ways to address the issue. That said, the reason I chose the two that I did is because they're fairly easy to implement. They could've reasonably gone in a book like Tasha's as optional class features for the fighter (and probably the barbarian too).
It can be debated whether or not they're sufficient, but I would find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that they do not at least narrow the gap by giving the fighter more options.
As for justification, I cite precedent! Not only did fighters and barbarians attract followers in earlier editions, but unless I am mistaken the 1e barbarian had a class feature allowing them to raise a barbarian horde. Not to mention a ton of media where a tough warrior has a posse that follows him around and does what he tells them to simply because he's awesome. It's basically a fantasy cliche.
With regard to crafting empowered items from trophies, I cite myth. Hercules had both the pelt of the Nimean lion and arrows dipped in the poisonous blood of the hydra (which had absolutely ziltch to do with Zeus being his dad, beyond his ability to slay those monsters in the first place). There are plenty of other examples in myth as well.
As an added bonus, neither of these features need be overtly supernatural. Even the magic items are so because of their innate magic, not because the fighter is a spellcaster. The fighter simply knows how to harness their power.
I get the other points, but this is a complete non sequitur, except in a sense that the gritty rests only stretch the verisimilitude whilst the normal rests shatter it with a sledgehammer.
