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

[Tony Vargas]

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

Wouldn't hurt to learn from their mistakes, tho.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

* 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.

The counterpoint to this in theory would be that the party does not always have control over how long their day is, and therefore a mixture of long-day classes and short-day classes is desirable as a sort of diversified portfolio.

This point is of course strictly theoretical in the case of the 3E fighter, which underperformed at any day length.

 

[Manbearcat]

Wouldn't hurt to learn from their mistakes, tho.

Worry in this case meaning “tie ourselves in knots over establishment, status quo, tradition, past design, market dynamics to the point that analysis is halted and design conversation is stifled.”

 

[Tony Vargas]

The counterpoint to this in theory would be that the party does not always have control over how long their day is

Not /always/, but it's still rather absurdist for the fighter to be expected to insist they press on in the hopes of exhausting the casters' spells so he can finally feel like he's contributing something.
Not much less absurd is expecting the DM to always apply just the right weight of time pressure to meet some theoretical balance-point.

This point is of course strictly theoretical in the case of the 3E fighter, which underperformed at any day length.

Lol. Caster classes were hella broken in 3.x, indeed. But (as in 5e) give it a long enough day and enough rounds of casters plinking with crossbows (or even more rounds of them plinking with cantrips) and the fighter /will/ catch up...
...in terms if overall DPR for the day.

Worry in this case meaning “tie ourselves in knots over establishment, status quo, tradition, past design, market dynamics to the point that analysis is halted and design conversation is stifled.”

Well, that'd suck, sure.

 

[Manbearcat]

Portent My Analysis
Flexibility some times to aid allies and harm enemies (nice)
Affects more types of rolls this is also flexibility (saving throws ) (nice)
Unpredictability : you don't know til you roll (ok)
Infrequent only twice daily or thrice when entering epic
Can include mediocre rolls well I suppose that is better than risking a bad roll
Can be wasted while you get it on exactly the thing you want you do not know if you need it.

Did I miss anything?

This looks good except I need clarification on the last component.

Can you clarify what yo mean by "wasted" here with a play example?

Also, did you see my instantiation of this for Dungeon World? I'm not sure how the spent Hold would be "wasted" there. Do you mean a situation whereby you provide an ally +1 and that +1 doesn't ultimately swing the tide because, say, they rolled a 5 or under (which means they're going to get 6- even with the +1) or a 7-8 (which means they're going to get a 7-9 result regardless of the +1)?

 

[Undrave]

The whole idea of balancing short rest vs long rest is just a sacred cows that is, again and again, proving to be detrimental. Why DO Wizards need to be so absurdly powerful that their power has to be curbed by huge limited ressources?

Being wedded to Vancian Casting as a point of differentiation between Spellcaster and Martial class with probably just keep us in a continual loop. As if a Caster doesn't feel like a Caster if it's not both SUPER powerful and limited.

 

[Nagol]

@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.

I have in 1e and a slightly modded 3.5e, but that's mainly because I specifically included bunches on non-class oriented things (weighted magic item treasures, NPC followers/cohorts, world factions with power and knowledge, magical effects that grant inherent or very long duration ability) that provide breadth to anyone who partakes (and requires time to pursue thus conflicting with the spellcasters preferred engine of growth magic item creation / spell creation).

 

[Garthanos]

This looks good except I need clarification on the last component.

Can you clarify what yo mean by "wasted" here with a play example?

Also, did you see my instantiation of this for Dungeon World?

i cant provide a decent analysis... for DW ... will have to do more analysis of the game itself. Especially with who is fans of the game. Basically if you have to decide to apply the roll without knowing if the roll succeeded in a sense it is wasted ... it might have been better to save it. There are abilities that let you know the roll you are aiding before you spend the resource. Like a bards inspiration die if I recall.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Not /always/, but it's still rather absurdist for the fighter to be expected to insist they press on in the hopes of exhausting the casters' spells so he can finally feel like he's contributing something.

My point is that this is a bit of a strawman argument. Not necessarily in the sense that nobody has ever honestly argued it, because this is the internet and I'm sure somebody has, but in the sense that it's the weakest and most ridiculous version of an argument that can hold some water.

Not much less absurd is expecting the DM to always apply just the right weight of time pressure to meet some theoretical balance-point.

It's not so much the matter of the DM applying just the right pressure every day as it is them applying different amounts and diverse varieties of pressure from day to day. As long as the party doesn't know whether they're going to be facing one encounter tomorrow or ten, then keeping around a fighter or other long-day character is a good investment.

Again, in theory, assuming those long-day characters are basically functional.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok...
So a bit more serious post:

What could a fighter bring to the table?

• he could have the benefit of the alert feat. Noone else could take it.
• he could have the ability to go without rest for days
• he could gain some supernatural diplomacy boosts and insight boosts
• he could give everyone around him boosts to their performance by sheer presence (like the paladin aura but more offensively oriented)
• he could resist hostile magic but increase the effect of friendly magic on him.

Some of those things are present or were present in some editions.
Some of those things are given to other classes or feats or subclasses.


Those things are possible. Giving a fighter the ability to fly or teleport is impossible without making him a wizard in disguise.

If you want parity there:
Add this effect to teleport spells:
Creatures capable of casting spells are nauseated for 10 minutes after teleporting.

This way you need fighters