Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

Yeah, enough that the fighters taking down a dragon several sizes bigger than a Mammoth is very much creeping into superpower territory.
Another poster earlier did a far better job than me pointing out all the things a high-level fighter routinely does/survives to make the case.
Nod. But it's all in a very tightly-limited domain of tanky DPR. And, what hps (and thus tankiness & DPR both) represent is highly abstracted. So you can interpret in ways that make high-level fighters (any high level 5e PCs, really, because there's just a lotta HD accumulat'n) into Highlanders (in the Quickening sense) or Asgardians (in the Marvel sense) or martial artists (in the Wuxia or Anime sense) or superheroes or just arbitrarily lucky.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
The rules have been changed because a subset of people disliked them. That's why we have 5e.
It's a carefully-crafted compromise trying to get around as many such dislikes as possible.
Losing top spot to a different RPG and seeing sales drop year after year was not the result of a small subset of people not liking 4E. It was more like the majority of people that had played previous editions of the game. Along with never appealing to newbies.

I'll agree there was opportunity to give feedback for 5E during the playtest. There still is for UA material. But the core of the game is pretty set in stone for now.
 

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
At a certain point, what do you expect? You have a few basic options if 5E doesn't suit your needs. Implement house rules, possibly grabbing some from from Dmsguild. Play a different game or edition. Wait for a UA article and participate in the survey and give feedback. Accept that no game can be for everyone.

The rules are what they are. They aren't going to change because a subset of people dislike it. They definitely aren't going to change just because you post to a message board.
We're not here to change the edition, we're here in this thread to suggest rulings, house rules and game structure to remove or reduce the issues that the OP is having. As in the first of your suggested options. I'm fairly sure that no one has suggested this thread is about any of the others.

The purpose of this thread is to come up with ideas of constructive changes that would help the OP. And so I would hope that is what everyone involved in it is here to do.
 
Losing top spot to a different RPG and seeing sales drop year after year was not the result of a small subset of people not liking 4E.
True, they weren't - there's a lot of forces at work in a market (though, with a cult/nerd property like D&D, a little nerdrage goes a long way) - changing the rules was a response to the dislike of a sub-set of people.

Those rules, were, themselves, based on a relatively small, self-selecting sub-set of people making criticisms of 3.x - "static combat" for instance. And, not entirely irrelevant to this topic, the proliferation of Fighter SUX threads back on Gleemax just might've had something to do with the huge expansion of choice/power that martial classes got in 4e. And, the contrary nerdrage of the edition war, to taking all that away again and powering casters back up. None of those were vast majorities of anything getting a consensus, they were relatively small, very vocal, elements.

So you're whistling past the graveyard, a bit. You know the game has changed in response to relatively small, very vocal, sub-sets of the fanbase, before. The last time, it changed in a way you liked.

The next time, who knows?

(Personally, I suspect D&D has finally settled into a 'sustaining' mode as far as rules go. Future editions will have different themes and different art and the like, but the rules aren't going to see substantive changes again. Like ever. That ship has sailed, hit a mine, burned to the waterline, sunk to the bottom of a deep-sea trench, been buried in a avalanche, and is currently riding a subduction zone very slowly into the upper mantle of the planet.)

(Then again, I've been wrong every time I've made a prediction about the future of D&D.)
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
We're not here to change the edition, we're here in this thread to suggest rulings, house rules and game structure to remove or reduce the issues that the OP is having. As in the first of your suggested options. I'm fairly sure that no one has suggested this thread is about any of the others.

The purpose of this thread is to come up with ideas of constructive changes that would help the OP. And so I would hope that is what everyone involved in it is here to do.
When someone comes up with some concrete rules rather than general complaints, I'll be happy to provide feedback.

I gave some suggestions a long time back, but there's no consensus on what the issue even is.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
We're not here to change the edition, we're here in this thread to suggest rulings, house rules and game structure to remove or reduce the issues that the OP is having. As in the first of your suggested options. I'm fairly sure that no one has suggested this thread is about any of the others.

The purpose of this thread is to come up with ideas of constructive changes that would help the OP. And so I would hope that is what everyone involved in it is here to do.
Sadly I gave feedback, analyzed said feedback and determined it wouldn't work for D&D. That caused these people to lose their minds and spend the next several pages attacking me for daring to say their idea wasn't compatible with D&D - which it isn't - but it's strange this is started in the D&D section and the OP mentions his problems with D&D several times - it seems reasonable to assume this thread was about fixing D&D for him - which I don't think can be done.

**Given it wasn't the OP doing that - just a few rather vocal people that thought he was talking about something he wasn't - but they did derail and ruin the thread for most of us that might continue to offer feedback
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
True, they weren't - there's a lot of forces at work in a market (though, with a cult/nerd property like D&D, a little nerdrage goes a long way) - changing the rules was a response to the dislike of a sub-set of people.

Those rules, were, themselves, based on a relatively small, self-selecting sub-set of people making criticisms of 3.x - "static combat" for instance. And, not entirely irrelevant to this topic, the proliferation of Fighter SUX threads back on Gleemax just might've had something to do with the huge expansion of choice/power that martial classes got in 4e. And, the contrary nerdrage of the edition war, to taking all that away again and powering casters back up. None of those were vast majorities of anything getting a consensus, they were small, vocal, elements.

So you're whistling past the graveyard, a bit. You know the game has changed in response to relatively small, very vocal, sub-sets of the fanbase, before. The last time, it changed in a way you liked.

The next time, who knows?

(Personally, I suspect D&D has finally settled into a 'sustaining' mode as far as rules go. Future editions will have different themes and different art and the like, but the rules aren't going to see substantive changes again. Like ever. That ship has sailed, hit a mine, burned to the waterline, sunk to the bottom of a deep-sea trench, been buried in a avalanche, and is currently riding a subduction zone very slowly into the upper mantle of the planet.)

(Then again, I've been wrong every time I've made a prediction about the future of D&D.)
One of the things they did well during the development of 5E (and continue to do with UA) is get feedback from a large number of people instead of letting a small group.

Any game could always be improved, and I think a strength of 5E is that it can be tweaked to suit different groups fairly easily.
 
One of the things they did well during the development of 5E (and continue to do with UA) is get feedback from a large number of people instead of letting a small group.
Self selected surveys aimed at unpaid playtesters aren't exactly a large or particularly valid sample.

I think the litmus tests were less about scientifically conducted surveys and majorities (hey, the majority of people have never tried D&D), but more about what would keep the perception of the property positive. That means not /outraging/ anyone - at least, anyone willing to go to great length to vent that outrage publicly.

Thus the whole 'compromise edition' thing.

Any game could always be improved, and I think a strength of 5E is that it can be tweaked to suit different groups fairly easily.
There is a tension, though, between tradition and cange. In the D&D community, for most of it's history, tradition has tended to win out. So, is there theoretically room to improve? Yes. Is it practical in the terms of maintaining the viability of the line? Maybe not s'much.

Sadly I gave feedback, analyzed said feedback and determined it wouldn't work for D&D. That caused these people to lose their minds and spend the next several pages attacking me for daring to say their idea wasn't compatible with D&D - which it isn't .
At that point, it's not that you're attacking the idea, it's that your attacking D&D. And not just any D&D, the Big Tent, kumbaya, compromise edition of D&D. The sacred 5th coming.

And, whatever judgements one may reach about the content of 5e 'RaW' or cooked, it's ultimately the DM's game to do with what he pleases, so, yeah, it /could/ be expanded & improved in the desired way, by a sufficiently determined and capable DM.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
But they aren't several sizes bigger.
The difference is brains AND armor and weaponry and mobility including flight you can scare a mastodon off a cliff with many relatively minor pains, The dragon is potentially smarter than you. Humans win in the real world because of our minds.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
You may not have meant to.
I don't think that's it. Assuming the OP wanted a solution compatible with D&D seemed reasonable - the thread is in the D&D section the OP lists his complaints about D&D and asks for ways it can be modified to suit him better.

I went through a number of suggestions - analyzed everyone and came to the conclusion that what was being produced was so far removed from D&D that I wouldn't call it D&D.

If the OP liked the solutions he's free to implement any of them - though he never really commented on ANY of them. I never told him don't try them if he likes the idea. But I also think it's worth talking about whether solutions proposed for the individual would be good for me and even whether they would be good for the game as a whole. Why is that such a touchy issue?
 
I don't think that's it. Assuming the OP wanted a solution compatible with D&D seemed reasonable
Sure. But nothing's innately incompatible with D&D. Not in it's current incarnation. The DM is free to add/change/override whatever he needs to, in order to /make/ it compatible with whatever goals he sets for his campaign.

came to the conclusion that what was being produced was so far removed from D&D that I wouldn't call it D&D.
So what? Unless it's being (illegally) sold under that trade dress, why would it matter?
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
Sure. But nothing's innately incompatible with D&D. Not in it's current incarnation. The DM is free to add/change/override whatever he needs to, in order to /make/ it compatible with whatever goals he sets for his campaign.

So what? Unless it's being (illegally) sold under that trade dress, why would it matter?
Why wouldn't it matter? It's an opinion forum after all and that's my opinion.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
This is very relevant to my point. Beowulf is described having many abilities. Hes still not able to "do all the things" though. You could much more easily emulate him with a class that isnt the vague "fighter"
Trying to figure out what might be some of those abilities included a brutal style of warlording (investigation style and a non-4e variant I think ) where he sacrificed minions to gain insight into enemies. And supernal con and strength swimming generally probably a naturalist hunter too. and social empowerment getting more minions all the time and... and fighting both with armor and weapons and effectively fighting unarmed and unarmored quite well,very definitely stealthy, but I suspect he cannot pick locks? but he definitely a sneaky bastard at times I am not sure his world had them very often. ... just thinking out loud because I might have to build that warlord type.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top