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

[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).