D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[Manbearcat]

@Tony Vargas

Well, as you know (I think?), I have a ridiculous amount of that level and beyond play in all of BECMI/RC, AD&D, and 3.x. The bulk of my 5e GMing (about 24 hours) is of lvl 14 and beyond.

I’ve never, not once, seen a Fighter be a consequential asset (forget parity with spellcasters) in noncombat resolution at those levels.

The only D&D (and derivative) games I’ve run at endgame tier play where a Fighter is both a consequential asset to noncombat resolution and at relative parity with spellcasters is 4e, Dungeon World, 13th Age, Cortex+ Fantasy Heroic, and Strike(!). Beyond the Wall and Torchbearer doesn’t get to that tier and I’ve only run a little of Shadows of the Demon Lord.

 

[Oofta]

@Tony Vargas

Well, as you know (I think?), I have a ridiculous amount of that level and beyond play in all of BECMI/RC, AD&D, and 3.x. The bulk of my 5e GMing (about 24 hours) is of lvl 14 and beyond.

I’ve never, not once, seen a Fighter be a consequential asset (forget parity with spellcasters) in noncombat resolution at those levels.

The only D&D (and derivative) games I’ve run at endgame tier play where a Fighter is both a consequential asset to noncombat resolution and at relative parity with spellcasters is 4e, Dungeon World, 13th Age, Cortex+ Fantasy Heroic, and Strike(!). Beyond the Wall and Torchbearer doesn’t get to that tier and I’ve only run a little of Shadows of the Demon Lord.

From a utility standpoint or a plot standpoint? Because I've seen fighters be critical for both, although in general fighters have less utility outside of combat by design.

If it's important to the player, there are ways of increasing a fighter's utility.

 

[Garthanos]

You can call it “Snortling Piggies” for all I care! I just want it to work and yield thematically coherent, tactically engaging play!

I do think what I call it... is part of the above

 

[Manbearcat]

@Oofta

Which system are you referring to? The 5e game I ran? I can give you more particulars once I know which system/game you’re asking about.

 

[Oofta]

@Oofta

Which system are you referring to? The 5e game I ran? I can give you more particulars once I know which system/game you’re asking about.

I've seen 5E fighters be quite integral to the team outside of combat based on backgrounds, skills taken and feats. Then again, most games I've been involved in don't have that many skill obstacles, it's more social/exploration arm of things. If that makes sense.

But I should probably just put this thread back on ignore since I don't see it as an issue. It's kind of like saying my Jeep Wrangler isn't very good at drag races. I don't have a problem with that because it's not what it's designed for.

If y'all want to discuss options go ahead and ignore my post.

 

[Tony Vargas]

From a utility standpoint or a plot standpoint?

Utility, contribution, effectiveness, resources, agency - call it what you will - if it's not deliverable via single-target DPR the fighter class probably lacks it.

"Plot standpoint?" Fairly arbitrary. The plot can be all about a certain character - the Rightful Heir to the Throne, say - who has no capacity to in any way impact the course of events, just a McGuffin or the Flag atop the hill to capture, but with legs, and, occasionally, even lines.

I've seen 5E fighters be quite integral to the team outside of combat based on backgrounds, skills taken and feats.

So, nothing that literally any other class couldn't have done in their place.
Oh, unless you mean a combination based on 6+ feats, no one of which was dispensable?

Then again, most games I've been involved in don't have that many skill obstacles, it's more social/exploration arm of things. If that makes sense.

It does, yes.

 

[Oofta]

Utility, contribution, effectiveness, resources, agency - call it what you will - if it's not deliverable via single-target DPR the fighter class probably lacks it.

Much like a heist movie, different PCs play different roles. I've never had a problem with it. Things like spells cast outside of combat are such a small part of the overall story that I don't care. It gives that swiss-army knife caster or rogue a chance to shine. That's cool by me, if I wanted that type of character I can build it either through a combination of backgrounds and feats or I can play a different class.

You see an issue where I see none. Feel free to ignore my post.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Much like a heist movie, different PCs play different roles.

One of those roles is rarely "does nothing during the actual heist," just beats up some extras in the title sequence. ;P

Things like spells cast outside of combat are such a small part of the overall story that I don't care. It gives that swiss-army knife caster or rogue a chance to shine.

Fine as far as it goes, but what about campaigns that don't focus primarily on combat? (that's rhetorical, feel free to ignore)

I wanted that type of character I can build it either through a combination of backgrounds and feats or I can play a different class.

That says it all, really.

Well, as you know (I think?), I have a ridiculous amount of that level and beyond play in all of BECMI/RC, AD&D, and 3.x. The bulk of my 5e GMing (about 24 hours) is of lvl 14 and beyond.

I did not know that.
And, my condolences. How did you find yourself in that position?

I’ve never, not once, seen a Fighter be a consequential asset (forget parity with spellcasters) in noncombat resolution at those levels.

Never a helpful fighter-only magic item back in the day, or a handy feat combo /only/ the 12+ feat fighter could pull together in 3e?

The only D&D (and derivative) games I’ve run at endgame tier play where a Fighter is both a consequential asset to noncombat resolution and at relative parity with spellcasters is 4e, Dungeon World, 13th Age, Cortex+ Fantasy Heroic, and Strike(!).

I'm only familiar with two of those, and haven't ever tried 13A at high level. As for the remainder "parity" is relative, and relative to other versions of D&D, sure, but still clearly behind classes that, like, have social skills other than Intimidate* on the class lists or ready access to rituals (though, yeah, they're primarily a gp resource, and thus fungible).




* I mean, seriously, the skill that's used to illustrate auto-failure, right in the example skill challenge, it's like they're saying: "oh, yeah, don't forget to bork the fighter in social challenges!"

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Could you give maybe 5 pithy excerpts from play experience (2-3 sentences) where the 20 Strength Fighter is performing at relative parity in dealing with tier-relevant exploration challenges with a Wizard when both are level 14 or higher?

Yes.
Climb for hours and days
Row for hours and days
Carry heavy things out of an antimagic zone
Open a heavy door in an antimagic zone
Free himself from manacles that prevent gestures.

 

[Undrave]

Carry heavy things out of an antimagic zone

So basically a donkey could do it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes.
Climb for hours and days

To get to where the wizard just flew?

Row for hours and days

To get to the island the wizard just teleported the whole party to, because stubborn, I guess?

Free himself from manacles that prevent gestures.

...without breaking them?

Carry heavy things out of an antimagic zone
Open a heavy door in an antimagic zone

"..in an anitmagic zone" is just the final admission of the strict superiority of magic - only invoking magic to remove magic restores any utility to not-magic.

So basically a donkey could do it?

Well the fighter's clearly pretty stubborn when he refuses the flying carpet or teleportation and climbs/rows there on his own.

 

[Oofta]

To get to where the wizard just flew?
To get to the island the wizard just teleported the whole party to, because stubborn, I guess?
...without breaking them?


"..in an anitmagic zone" is just the final admission of the strict superiority of magic - only invoking magic to remove magic restores any utility to not-magic.

Well the fighter's clearly pretty stubborn when he refuses the flying carpet or teleportation and climbs/rows there on his own.

Boy, you really want fighters to suck! Cherry pick my post to highlight the "or play a different class" ignoring the flexibility of builds in 5E, assume there's always a caster with 7th level spells, etc.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Boy, you really want fighters to suck!

Lol!

…less.

assume there's always a caster with 7th level spells, etc.

In the comparison between the fighter & wizard at 14th level or higher, yes, that's kinda a given.

Cherry pick my post to highlight the "or play a different class" ignoring the flexibility of builds in 5E,

Hey, I didn't leave out the possibility of getting the character you want via backgrounds and optional feats, I fully intended my reply to the whole statement. Depending on backgrounds and optional feats for character-definition, included.

 

[Krachek]

Could you give maybe 5 pithy excerpts from play experience (2-3 sentences) where the 20 Strength Fighter is performing at relative parity in dealing with tier-relevant exploration challenges with a Wizard when both are level 14 or higher?

I think what feel bizarre here is the term « performing at relative parity ».
We play a RPG here. We are not a professional competition.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think what feel bizarre here is the term « performing at relative parity ».
We play a RPG here. We are not a professional competition.

Here is the chain of thought:

1) This isn’t playing or part of play. This is a conversation about two particular play priorities.

2) These particular play priorities are about competition + competitive integrity and tactical decision-point depth in the expression of that first priority.

3) Despite how you (or others) May feel about them, competition and competitive integrity are legitimate play priorities for D&D and TTRPGing generally. They are not dysfunctional and anathema to TTRPGing (in fact, they are at the roots of our hobby).

4) In a design conversation centered around the above play priorities, analysis is required.

5) Hence, nothing about this is bizarre from first principles.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't usually roleplay the servant or sidekick or rarely useful hanger on often, OK wait as the DM I do scratch that. Its not my normal goal as a player

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here is the chain of thought:

Oh no, I'm still traumatized by all the (spiked)chains in 3e.

1) This isn’t playing or part of play. This is a conversation about two particular play priorities.

Not about playing or play, but about play...?

...may be losing me, here...

2) These particular play priorities are about competition + competitive integrity and tactical decision-point depth in the expression of that first priority.

Yep, lost.

3) Despite how you (or others) May feel about them, competition and competitive integrity are legitimate play priorities for D&D and TTRPGing generally. They are not dysfunctional and anathema to TTRPGing (in fact, they are at the roots of our hobby).

Even in the distinction between a competitive and cooperative game, game /balance/ is more important in the latter, because everyone is meant to be involved and fully-contributing, not maneuvering to make the best contribution to spite eachother*.
In the former, the lower standard of 'fairness' is quite adequate.

4) In a design conversation centered around the above play priorities, analysis is required.
5) Hence, nothing about this is bizarre from first principles.

* back on Gleemax, there was a school of thought that, if you played a fighter you'd "want" longer days, so you could shine, so there should be a built in check against the casters' impulse to the 5MWD. Among many other reasons that didn't manifest was that the point of /decisions/ in a cooperative game is to maximize the performance of the group, not minimize the performance of one member so another can finally make a non-trivial contribution. The fighter's best play, back then, was to be down with resting every chance the party got - and, the players best option was to /not play a fighter/ because other classes could contribute daily resources that were more important to the party's success than anything it had to offer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't usually roleplay the servant or sidekick or rarely useful hanger on often....

...but when I do, it's a warlord build.

 

[Krachek]

3) Despite how you (or others) May feel about them, competition and competitive integrity are legitimate play priorities for D&D and TTRPGing generally. They are not dysfunctional and anathema to TTRPGing (in fact, they are at the roots of our hobby).

It is in fact legitimate priorities, but I don’t think game designers have the same ones when they build up the game. We play a game where rolled stat is the default.
In the Dm guide they state that having a pc 3 level below the others is acceptable to still have fun. So I really don’t think we buy a game with so high standard in competitive integrity.

 

[Manbearcat]

It is in fact legitimate priorities, but I don’t think game designers have the same ones when they build up the game. We play a game where rolled stat is the default.
In the Dm guide they state that having a pc 3 level below the others is acceptable to still have fun. So I really don’t think we buy a game with so high standard in competitive integrity.

Well, let me harken back to my earlier posts.

a) This isn't a post about WotC D&D (5e or other) broadly.

b) Consequently, this isn't a post about creating a new version of D&D (6e perhaps).

c) This isn't a post petitioning WotC to produce new content for their present iteration of D&D.

d) This is a design discussion about how to create what the lead post was seeking (tactically deep martial gameplay that doesn't include "GM curation" - spotlight passing and adventure tailoring).

So we don't need to worry about what a present or past version of any game is like in order to have this design discussion (I don't know why I keep needing to reiterate this).