D&D 5E (2014) Martial Characters vs Real World Athletes

[Morty]

I agree that D&D 3e made army-slaying too easy, and it's kind of stuck since then, taken for granted. 5e changes that, at least, although in the dullest way possible.

 

[pemerton]

Aragorn is worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights but much of it is because of all sorts of reasons utterly external to the things a fighter or even a wizard in D&D have and do. Aragorn is significant in the eyes of Sauron because, fundamentally, he has the right to counter Sauron's might. That's how he wrests control of the palantir - because it is his by right. Why is he a significant leader of men? Because it is his birthright, his destiny. These concepts are pretty big thematic elements of Lord of the Rings. And none of that are really things D&D has done much modeling of outside of Birthright because they are (and should be) highly campaign dependent.

I want high-level PCs to be powerful - legendary even - but even legendary heroes have to be vulnerable to some threat (and not just an exceptional one that has to be contrivedly summoned every adventure), and it has to have some relation to reality.

I'd rather that the majority of their power comes from their political influence or (by that stage) leadership of fiefdoms/kingdoms, not from how they can single-handedly defeat any army on the planet*.

In fact AD&D modelled a fighter's right to rule fairly clearly - at 9th level s/he got an army that a wizard didn't. There are pros and cons to this as a mechanical approach to the issue, but it was there as part of the game.

Where are the mechanics to support a fighter's leadership? Eg bonuses to CHA? Automatic relationships with key NPCs? Men-at-arms in the style of classic D&D? Etc. If this is where a high level fighter's powers is expected to come from, where is the rules support? Reading the Basic 5e PDF, a wizard is as likely to have these sorts of resources as a fighter, perhaps even moreso because s/he can probably better afford to pump CHA as a secondary stat after INT.

 

[Grainger]

In fact AD&D modelled a fighter's right to rule fairly clearly - at 9th level s/he got an army that a wizard didn't. There are pros and cons to this as a mechanical approach to the issue, but it was there as part of the game.

Where are the mechanics to support a fighter's leadership? Eg bonuses to CHA? Automatic relationships with key NPCs? Men-at-arms in the style of classic D&D? Etc. If this is where a high level fighter's powers is expected to come from, where is the rules support? Reading the Basic 5e PDF, a wizard is as likely to have these sorts of resources as a fighter, perhaps even moreso because s/he can probably better afford to pump CHA as a secondary stat after INT.

I don't understand why we need rules or mechanics for everything. If a character makes it to, say, 10th-level (or whatever feels right for the campaign), then it's likely that he/she will have accumulated allies and influence. Maybe not - it depends on the campaign and the setting. In my setting, which is a Feudal one, it's probably time for the characters to gain control of (or set up) Baronies, if they so wish.

It doesn't matter to me whether the character is a Fighter or a Wizard. It will be their reputation, contacts and wealth which will determine whether they can do this, not their personal prowess in battle (this is not a tribal society where personal fighting prowess decides who gets to rule; although "might makes right" probably prevails, "might" could mean skill with magic or diplomacy).

This is the sort of thing that is up to the DM and the players. I think there are going to be rules for how to run dominions in the DMG, but that's beside the point - gaining more political influence will emerge naturally in many settings (and not at all in others). It will either fit the setting, story and players' tastes, or it won't.

Bringing it back to the topic in hand, by high level characters will be formidable opponents in one-on-one combat, but in my view, their power should really lie in things other than fighting prowess. To me, it just seems stupid to have 20th-level characters being one-man reaping machines on the battlefield. Sure, they might turn the tide of a battle, but not by single-handedly killing the entire enemy army. For me, it's much more convincing - and appealing - that by this stage their interests lie in influencing the world around them through political power, rather than personally thinning the enemy ranks (although they might still do plenty of quests between the politicking).

Of course, if other groups want to have one-man death machines, they could handle this by dishing out lots of magic items, or giving characters lots of feats, bumping their hit points, allowing progression beyond 20th level (by home-brewing extra levels), etc. It's much, much easier to do a monty haul campaign in any system than a restrained one; therefore I say the rules should produce more down-to-earth characters; DMs can easily throw in the "epic" if they wish.

 

[pemerton]

I don't understand why we need rules or mechanics for everything. If a character makes it to, say, 10th-level (or whatever feels right for the campaign), then it's likely that he/she will have accumulated allies and influence. Maybe not - it depends on the campaign and the setting. In my setting, which is a Feudal one, it's probably time for the characters to gain control of (or set up) Baronies, if they so wish.

It doesn't matter to me whether the character is a Fighter or a Wizard. It will be their reputation, contacts and wealth which will determine whether they can do

<snip>

This is the sort of thing that is up to the DM and the players.

<snip>

To me, it just seems stupid to have 20th-level characters being one-man reaping machines on the battlefield

High level magic-users, though, are one-man reaping machines on the battlefield. Does over 100 hp of damage to 4 areas of 40' R - which is to say that it effectively wipes out dozens of knights in mere seconds. Or destroys whole encampments or villages.

And of course meteor swarm is not the only trick that a 20th level MU can have up his/her sleeve.

If high level fighters, on the other hand, in order to have world-shaking abilities, are reliant upon the same resources as every other PC has access to - and that other PCs, including wizards, are probably better at (given superior mental stats) - then that just reinforces the impression that they are underpowered.

Why shouldn't fighters have special, class-derived pathways into power and influence, as they did in AD&D? It's hardly at odds with the genre (eg Conan, Aragorn, Beowulf, the Knights of the Round Table, etc). And the reason for having mechanics to govern this is to enable the players of such PCs to exert the same degree of influence over the direction and content of the game as the players of spell-using PCs.

 

[Grainger]

I take your point about casters' power at high levels. But that at least makes sense: lobbing fireballs around is going to take out large numbers of enemy troops. Charging them with a sword, IMO, shouldn't (after a point; obviously a Fighter might take out many foes, but he/she shouldn't be a serious threat to a large army on his/her own). But the Fighter is going to have advantages in other situations.

I suppose I'm just old school (all this talk online of one class being more powerful or not than another bemuses me), and I'd say that ensuring all the characters have something interesting to do is the responsibility of the DM. If one player is left out, it doesn't really matter what mechanics you have at that level, as so much will be driven by the world's storylines. And you certainly don't need rules dictating that It All Works Out Fairly. It's just basic common sense, and any DM who runs a game at that level should be very experienced anyway.

TL;DR: it's ultimately the DM's province anyway: a poor DM can leave players uninvolved whether you have the rules there or not, and a good DM will give everyone something interesting to do. I lean heavily towards "as few rules to accomplish something as possible", so let's just leave this up to DMs.

 

[Morty]

I don't understand why we need rules or mechanics for everything.

Which is why nobody is asking for that. What people are asking for are rules and guidelines for building domains and influence. Which aren't exactly fringe cases it's safe to make up as you go along. We might or might not get them in the Dungeon Master's Guide for 5e - but to dismiss the need for them like that is just dishonest.

 

[Grainger]

Which is why nobody is asking for that. What people are asking for are rules and guidelines for building domains and influence. Which aren't exactly fringe cases it's safe to make up as you go along.

And, I believe, we are getting that in the DMG*. My point about rules was that I don't think Fighters have to be Reaping Machines of Death at level 20 just because Wizards can take out large sections of an enemy army.



*If they aren't included, I can recommend the 1980s D&D Companion Rules or the Rules Cyclopedia, which both cover Dominions very well, and the rules there will probably work pretty well with 5e, with the proviso that they are set up to keep players poor, so they need to go adventuring; I'd personally bump up the incomes given.

 

[Morty]

We might. But I'm rather exasperated that whenever someone points out that something could or should be covered by the rules, the response is invariably a dismissive statement that "we don't need rules for everything, figure it out yourself". A rule you can ignore or alter is generally better than not having rules for something, within reason and word count.

As far as fighters fighting off armies go, I treat it as a purely academic question - the fight is going to be a wonderful cure for insomnia either way, so why bother? I think some mass combat rules are planned - maybe they'll make it actually worth playing out.

 

[Grainger]

We might. But I'm rather exasperated that whenever someone points out that something could or should be covered by the rules, the response is invariably a dismissive statement that "we don't need rules for everything, figure it out yourself". A rule you can ignore or alter is generally better than not having rules for something, within reason and word count.

As far as fighters fighting off armies go, I treat it as a purely academic question - the fight is going to be a wonderful cure for insomnia either way, so why bother? I think some mass combat rules are planned - maybe they'll make it actually worth playing out.

By the way, If the mass combat rules aren't in the DMG, or you don't like them, take a look at War Machine, again from the D&D Companion set and Rules Cyclopaedia. It provides an excellent way to resolve mass combat without breaking out the miniatures. There's a bit of preparation in figuring out the strengths of each force involved (training, equipment, etc.) but resolution of the battle itself is very quick, and it comes out with convincing results.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're playing the wrong game, pick up a superhero game. Level 20 martial characters in D&D do not have fantastical abilities simply by the fact that they're 20, and definitely not by the fact that, as you imply, they have more HP. More HP just means better ability to not suffer a killing blow.

Anyone who can take a critical hit from an orc with a large axe and be unphased by it is either wearing something like Gothic Plate or is supernatural.

Not to mention: in the real, mundane, world, it is possible to kill or disable someone with a single sword-stroke. There is no reason, as far as realism is concerned, for spell casters to be the only D&D characters able to circumvent the hit point system in combat.

This too. D&D weapons seem to be nerf weapons - in a realistic sytem all fighter attacks should be Save or Die.

The balance for wizads then lies in their utility, non-combat abilities.

I'd be happy if a novaing wizard still couldn't touch the fighter in combat.

That is a great steaming pile of freshly laid self-righteous victemhood. And it's completly false on many, many levels.

First D&D is much more closely tied to literary heros and tropes than to mythic ones. There are games tied to Myth, D&D is not and never has been one of them.

Except where it explicitly says otherwise - Hercules has been mentioned as inspiration for a D&D fighter.

Furthermore those literary influences contain large chunks of the Swords and Sorcery genre where magic is not easy, and never free.

Which makes it utterly unlike D&D magic which is as free and easy as Harry Potter.

If you want to replace the D&D wizards with WFRP wizards, feel free. Because right now your argument appears to be something like "D&D Fighters come from Sword and Sorcery. D&D Wizards come from Exalted. And they are different in power because the two sources are different in power and nothing should be done to attempt to deal with how different the source material is.".

Secondly while you are proudly claiming victemhood your are rather pointedly ignoring the simple fact that a Class designed to play as Hercules cannot also portray Fafhred and Conan. Why is it you must be allowed your perferred playstyle, but others cannot?

This is nonsense. Fafhrd is simply much lower level than Hercules.

Thirdly, this means your claim that the conflict is miscast is patently false. Worse you're disingenuous even about your own goals. A "Mythic Hero" class won't cut it, it must be a fighter, even a Totem barbarian is too far for you to bend. Why?

Because Hercules didn't have Totem Animals.

And because the fighter pretends to be level 20. If you want to put a rule into D&D that says "The fighter only exists from levels 1-5" that would actually work. A "level 20" fighter who can't keep up with level 20 casters is false advertising.

Fourth the heroes you cite are not mortal, mundane characters, except possibly Beowulf whose ancestry and training are not gone into as best I recall. Hercules is a demigod. Chu Chulain was trained and armed by supernatural powers.

Fine. Why the double standards with wizards who can curb-stomp the power shown by demigods?

To be clear though, a level 20 fighter in 5e can kill almost anything in the world in under 20 seconds. So Samwise Gamgee he ain't.

Anything except level 20 threats...