D&D 5E My Players Didn't Like 5e :( Help Me Get Them Into It!!

[Mishihari Lord]

On magic vs martial, it's slightly more complex than just stronger vs weaker. In 1E, magic-users were dominant combatants, but they had significant weaknesses, especially spell interruption. They needed the martial characters to cover their weaknesses or they were orc meat. In a 1E fight, frequently the most critical issue was to keep the bad guys off your magic-user so he can get his nuke off. In 3E, wizards kept the strengths but lost the weaknesses, so of course they dominated. Spell interruption pretty much went away with the new initiative system and that one feat. In 5E the wizard's strength was reduced moderately, but the weaknesses were not re-introduced. My preference is the 1E approach.

 

[MrZeddaPiras]

I think "rulings not rules" is really given too much attention, both by fans and critics of 5ed. The system is simple, but not that loose. Once you accept that adjudicating most situations involves someone gaining/losing advantage/disadvantage, you don't need to make all these rulings if you don't want to, expecially if you use a grid during combats.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It was this way back to the time that casters could do above 3rd level spells. High level casters were always constructed with the idea that they would be able to alter the world with magic making them more powerful than martials. It is a fantasy genre trope whether it be Merlin, The Dragon Reborn, the various sorcerers in Conan, Elric, Alanon, Gandalf, and the list is nearly endless. Magic is mysterious, powerful, and virtually unlimited.

Except that, in those olden days, high-level Fighters were given their own set of impressive, and more importantly powerful, benefits. A big one is that Fighters had great saves; they could often shrug off the effects that a high-level caster could throw at them. Fighters also had an almost open-ended number of attacks, based on level, against what we would, today, call "minions" (I think back then they were "level 0" or something like that? I don't remember the term).

As for the power and limits of magic--that's in the designer's hands. Certainly if you want to cite things like The Dragon Reborn or Gandalf, you're comparing things that don't look at all the same to me--neither one of them could *possibly* be represented in D&D, though ironically for totally opposite reasons. Channeling is NOTHING like spell slots, except that you can do lots of it (and, to be fair, much of it is very flashy)--spells are a matter of willpower and can be created on the fly (Flame of Tar Valon, anyone?), you can burn yourself out, and individuals can be massively talented at one specific thing and total weaksauce at everything else (e.g. the guy who is amazing at making portals but barely mediocre at most other magic). Gandalf's magic is only slightly better, and only because it's used in discrete chunks, but it's also very rare, as opposed to the D&D Wizard who is flinging out spells left and right by the time they're at a level remotely like Gandalf's; he's obviously extremely powerful, yet he almost never casts magic! Even Garth Nix's Old Kingdom doesn't really have D&D-like magic, and the whole "study the Charter Marks, which come in discrete circles of power" thing is one of the closest conceptions I've seen.

If "genre emulation" is what the caster/martial divide is supposed to do, the only "genre" D&D is emulating at this point is itself. If we're willing to buck other traditions, this one too should be up on the table--particularly when there are dozens of other, *at least* equally-valid, ways of doing magic--that *don't* have to make some characters Simply Weaker than others.

I don't understand why so many have such a problem with it in a game that is supposed to mirror the fantasy genre. Is it because you don't read fantasy books? Or because you prefer a game be balanced?

Before I respond: Questions of the type "do you just not read??" are rather offensive. They make you come across as someone who thinks that, in order to disagree with you, a person must be deficient in some way.

Yes, I read fantasy literature. I also read mythological literature, science-fiction literature, and a number of other genres (including nonfiction, particularly philosophy journals). If "genre emulation" is what we're actually going for, I think D&D is actually pretty crappy at it. It's certainly crappy at representing the vast majority of main characters, and its spellcasters are only the vaguest bit like the vast majority of magical heroes. Gandalf is nothing like a high-level D&D Wizard. Every version of Merlin I've read about is nothing like a high-level D&D Wizard, and others have explained that particular difference well enough. "Artillery-like" (e.g. flashy, single-use, expendable) spells are a very "modern" concept of how magic works. I consider myths, legends, and fables just as much part of the "fantasy" genre as anything from the 50s (Dying Earth, Elric) or even the whole 20th century (e.g. John Carter in the 1910s, Conan in the 30s). Only supporting a "hermetic artillery" conception of magic is a sad loss even compared to that lot, to say nothing of ignoring an enormous swathe of mythic and fable traditions--numerous each from Europe, the Middle East, and both South and East Asia.

What I can say is: I've read basically none of Moorcock or Vance. I see no reason whatsoever to privilege their perspectives on magic above or below any others. I also see plenty of reason to accommodate mythic figures like Cú Chulainn (or Conchobar mac Nessa if you want a non-demigod), Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Sigurd, Sinbad, Samson, Ali-baba, Harun al-Rashid, Bharata, Karna, Liu Bei, Sun Wukong, and many others (ideally a more gender-mixed group--I suppose I should have added Atalanta, Scheherezade, Ruth, Rahab, Deborah, Scathach, Boudica, Joan of Arc, Wu Zetian, Hua Mulan, and a few more badass ladies.)

And yes, I do value a game which puts all players on a "big picture" level playing field. As well as a game which guarantees that, no matter what preferences you have, those preferences provide baseline choices* which inherently and directly support** participation in all things considered "important" to play†, without depending on general-use items, and without having to "opt into" participating in them††.

*Read: classes and races, mainly; 4e, 5e, 13A, and other games show that a push to add a third "baseline choice," Background/Theme, is growing.
**Ideally with both "active" (aka "declarative") and "passive" (aka "always-on") benefits.
†In 5e, this would be the three pillars, which the designers have explicitly chosen to make important.
††If the designers consider something to be fundamentally important to playing the game, whether you get stuff for it shouldn't be a choice IMHO. I've considered starting a thread specifically to discuss that very topic, since it was...so compellingly questioned in the "Why Does 5e Suck" thread before I bowed out of it.

On magic vs martial, it's slightly more complex than just stronger vs weaker. In 1E, magic-users were dominant combatants, but they had significant weaknesses, especially spell interruption. They needed the martial characters to cover their weaknesses or they were orc meat. In a 1E fight, frequently the most critical issue was to keep the bad guys off your magic-user so he can get his nuke off. In 3E, wizards kept the strengths but lost the weaknesses, so of course they dominated. Spell interruption pretty much went away with the new initiative system and that one feat. In 5E the wizard's strength was reduced moderately, but the weaknesses were not re-introduced. My preference is the 1E approach.

This is what I was trying to say, so thank you, Mishihari.

5e toned down the upper echelons of caster power. It also slightly pushed up the minimum competence of all characters, thus necessarily making characters resting at that minimum better, namely "martial" characters. Clearly, a visible quantity ("some" sounds too small, "many" sounds too big) of people feel these changes were enough. I do not. That does not mean I want Fighters doing every single thing Wizards do (that is obviously silly). I do think SOME caster classes (mostly Cleric/Wizard) are still slightly too powerful+flexible+adaptable. I also think that Fighters could have been given just, say, two extra (preferably declarative) abilities to call uniquely their own, and would have been brought into "acceptable" territory. I'd still prefer 4e and the way it definitively solved these issues, that much is sure. But I'd be, at the very least, harder-pressed to complain.

Would I still have complained if this change had been there at release? I don't know. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. Maybe I would have been completely unpleasable with anything that didn't clearly evolve from 4e. Hypothetical aesthetic first-responses to things are not easy to judge. I can, at least, say that there WERE times in the playtest where I was actually excited--the first-round Warlock and Sorcerer, to be specific. And then that excitement was dashed upon the rocks, without even the chance to defend itself.

 

[Celtavian]

Except that, in those olden days, high-level Fighters were given their own set of impressive, and more importantly powerful, benefits. A big one is that Fighters had great saves; they could often shrug off the effects that a high-level caster could throw at them. Fighters also had an almost open-ended number of attacks, based on level, against what we would, today, call "minions" (I think back then they were "level 0" or something like that? I don't remember the term).

Not even close to what a caster could do in breadth.

As for the power and limits of magic--that's in the designer's hands. Certainly if you want to cite things like The Dragon Reborn or Gandalf, you're comparing things that don't look at all the same to me--neither one of them could *possibly* be represented in D&D, though ironically for totally opposite reasons. Channeling is NOTHING like spell slots, except that you can do lots of it (and, to be fair, much of it is very flashy)--spells are a matter of willpower and can be created on the fly (Flame of Tar Valon, anyone?), you can burn yourself out, and individuals can be massively talented at one specific thing and total weaksauce at everything else (e.g. the guy who is amazing at making portals but barely mediocre at most other magic). Gandalf's magic is only slightly better, and only because it's used in discrete chunks, but it's also very rare, as opposed to the D&D Wizard who is flinging out spells left and right by the time they're at a level remotely like Gandalf's; he's obviously extremely powerful, yet he almost never casts magic! Even Garth Nix's Old Kingdom doesn't really have D&D-like magic, and the whole "study the Charter Marks, which come in discrete circles of power" thing is one of the closest conceptions I've seen.

It mirrors the genre hierarchy well in my opinion. You have listed nothing that has changed my opinion in that regard.

It doesn't mirror fiction well other than the one it aspires to be, that I agree with.

If "genre emulation" is what the caster/martial divide is supposed to do, the only "genre" D&D is emulating at this point is itself. If we're willing to buck other traditions, this one too should be up on the table--particularly when there are dozens of other, *at least* equally-valid, ways of doing magic--that *don't* have to make some characters Simply Weaker than others.

I disagree. Even in mythological fiction, casters can do more than martials. Circe is for example more powerful than Odysseus, Hercules, and other such characters in Greek myth other than other gods which are more caster than martial.

Before I respond: Questions of the type "do you just not read??" are rather offensive. They make you come across as someone who thinks that, in order to disagree with you, a person must be deficient in some way.

It is a legitimate question. It answers what type of background you come from. A person that comes to the game from books will have a very different expectation than one that comes to the game from video games. The question was not directly for a single person.

Yes, I read fantasy literature. I also read mythological literature, science-fiction literature, and a number of other genres (including nonfiction, particularly philosophy journals). If "genre emulation" is what we're actually going for, I think D&D is actually pretty crappy at it. It's certainly crappy at representing the vast majority of main characters, and its spellcasters are only the vaguest bit like the vast majority of magical heroes. Gandalf is nothing like a high-level D&D Wizard. Every version of Merlin I've read about is nothing like a high-level D&D Wizard, and others have explained that particular difference well enough. "Artillery-like" (e.g. flashy, single-use, expendable) spells are a very "modern" concept of how magic works. I consider myths, legends, and fables just as much part of the "fantasy" genre as anything from the 50s (Dying Earth, Elric) or even the whole 20th century (e.g. John Carter in the 1910s, Conan in the 30s). Only supporting a "hermetic artillery" conception of magic is a sad loss even compared to that lot, to say nothing of ignoring an enormous swathe of mythic and fable traditions--numerous each from Europe, the Middle East, and both South and East Asia.

Flashy is easiest to create. You could other things as a caster. I did quite often. Flashy explosive spells get quite boring. D&D has supported other arcane types than hermetic artillery, though that is the probably the simplest user of magic to represent.

What I can say is: I've read basically none of Moorcock or Vance. I see no reason whatsoever to privilege their perspectives on magic above or below any others. I also see plenty of reason to accommodate mythic figures like Cú Chulainn (or Conchobar mac Nessa if you want a non-demigod), Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Sigurd, Sinbad, Samson, Ali-baba, Harun al-Rashid, Bharata, Karna, Liu Bei, Sun Wukong, and many others (ideally a more gender-mixed group--I suppose I should have added Atalanta, Scheherezade, Ruth, Rahab, Deborah, Scathach, Boudica, Joan of Arc, Wu Zetian, Hua Mulan, and a few more badass ladies.)

Explain to me how these mythical figures do not exist. Most of your list is martial characters that could be quite easily emulated within D&D. Once we start incorporating such figures across fiction and mythology, we must star to answer questions such as could Beowulf defeat Gandalf or Merlin? Could Odysseus stand against Elric or The Dragon Reborn? Could Hercules kill Circe?

As long as the relative power hierarchy is emulated, I'm happy. Even in mythology users of magic are the most fearsome and dangerous villains the heroes must overcome other than perhaps a monster such as a dragon.

I do not understand why you think martial are not well represented. Very easy to create a martial that is extremely powerful in the context of the world be it the only man to pull a particular bow or the wielder of an extraordinary magic weapon. It doesn't mean they are as openly strong as a magic user, which is usually why they don't take them on straight up. Just like the magic user isn't stupid enough to pick up a weapon and go toe to toe with the martial.

The general genre conventions are mirrored in D&D. The caster-martial disparity is part of that convention, even in mythology. The one thing the martials in mythology never like to deal with is magic because it is so powerful. They have a health respect and fear of it which drives their tactics when dealing with casters or magical creatures. This listing of powerful martials does not change their capabilities, which are often derived from magic items created by others.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What I can say is: I've read basically none of Moorcock or Vance. I see no reason whatsoever to privilege their perspectives on magic above or below any others.

I suppose EGG being a fan was reason enough for him.

Dying Earth is a classic of science-fiction that influenced later, equally classic works, like MZB's Darkover, or Wolfe's remarkable Urth of the New Sun - but it's not fantasy, and it's highly repeatable, fire-and-forget memorized formulae were nothing like any sort of magic that came before. Even so, Vance's take on magic was convenient from a wargame design PoV. The limited ammunition and specific effects for specific ammunition choices were dynamics wargames had handled with artillery, which wizards were analogous to in Chainmail, something that didn't change with D&D. The casting was also relatively quick, where most traditional magic would involve long, elaborate rituals. So it fit neatly into D&D's style of combat, too.

The obvious thing D&D took from Moorcock was alignment - Law/Chaos in 0D&D, later expanded with the Good/Evil axis. Moorcock had not take on magic that I ever noticed. Magic did magic stuff, mostly it was items that delivered combat-useable magic. Elric was supposed to be a sorcerer, but essentially most of what he did under that rubric was call on Arioch for divine intervention or remember something about some monster a rival sorcerer had just summoned. For the most part he just held onto Stormbringer while it ate armies. There was no real consistency in how magic worked, though there was some when it came to how gods worked.

I also see plenty of reason to accommodate mythic figures like Cú Chulainn (or Conchobar mac Nessa if you want a non-demigod), Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Sigurd, Sinbad, Samson, Ali-baba, Harun al-Rashid, Bharata, Karna, Liu Bei, Sun Wukong, and many others (ideally a more gender-mixed group--I suppose I should have added Atalanta, Scheherezade, Ruth, Rahab, Deborah, Scathach, Boudica, Joan of Arc, Wu Zetian, Hua Mulan, and a few more badass ladies.)

You left out Perseus - about the only mythic hero who was decked out with magic items like a D&D character.

But, honestly, I don't see a strong reason to try to fit in all of those. Some are pretty obscure. Not that Archbishop Turpin - about the only example 2e could dig up for a 'Cleric,' even though he never healed anyone and fought with a sword & lance - is exactly a household name.

I disagree. Even in mythological fiction, casters can do more than martials. Circe is for example more powerful than Odysseus, Hercules, and other such characters in Greek myth.

Circe could turn men into animals. Either by tapping them with a wand, or by feeding them a magic potion slipped into their food or wine, depending on the version. That was /all/ she did as far as magical power went.

Casters, and caster-equivalents, like Circe (a daughter of Helios & and grand-daughter of Oceanus), tend to be clever, have a small number of remarkable supernatural powers, and to cultivate and trade on a fearsome/mysterious reputation that they can't really back up when the hero's decapitating them. And, in D&D terms, they would mostly be 'monsters' or NPCs.

Flashy is easiest to create. You could other things as a caster. I did quite often. Flashy explosive spells get quite boring. D&D has supported other arcane types than hermetic artillery, though that is the probably the simplest user of magic to represent.

D&D rapidly expand what spells could do to cover just about any supernatural feat ever attributed to just about any caster, artifact, deity or monster in any collection of folklore or nominally-fantasy work of fiction available to it's creators.

But, the mechanism remained artillery-like, most spells being cast from a safe distance, and all being so many rounds of magical canister to be expended judiciously at the most opportune moment.

Explain to me how these mythical figures do not exist. Most of your list is martial characters that could be quite easily emulated within D&D. Once we start incorporating such figures across fiction and mythology, we must star to answer questions such as could Beowulf defeat Gandalf or Merlin? Could Odysseus stand against Elric or The Dragon Reborn? Could Hercules kill Circe?

Hmmm, well, yes, actually: the name on the left in each of your comparisons there is the Hero, and we all know what happens to the villain.

Mind you, Beowulf wouldn't just up and kill Gandalf or Merlin, because murdering old men isn't his thing. Old women who gave birth to trolls, maybe... And neither Gandalf nor Merlin would have any reason to put themselves in such a situation. Merlin would want to set himself up as court magician, and Gandalf would probably be there to retrieve some trinket from the dragon's horde. Both would accomplish their goals with a lot of persuasion and very little magic. Indeed, the same could be said even if we were talking Sturla's vision of Beowulf in world without any overt magic, where Merlin and Gandalf would just be old charlatans.

As long as the relative power hierarchy is emulated

That heirarchy is better handled by level than class. There are extremely weak casters in genre (like Skeeve or Tobas or - well, most caster-protagonists, unless it's some Lensmen-esque powertrip, where everyone who matters is a god-being), there are extremely powerful warriors (already listed upthread).

I do not understand why you think martial are not well represented. Very easy to create a martial that is extremely powerful in the context of the world be it the only man to pull a particular bow or the wielder of an extraordinary magic weapon.

Relatively few heroes in myth or genre were defined only by their prowess with a weapon. If you recall any of the old Giants in the Earth articles, the writers would typically give such characters many levels in both fighter and thief, and add special skills and abilities on top. Because heroes were usually pretty varied and remarkable in their talents. D&D has never done that well.

And, there's no game-balance or game-design reason for it. You could take the basic (and, damn, high DPR as it is, it really is basic) combat power of a 5e Champion fighter, give it all the non-combat utility of a 5e Thief rogue, and still have a class that wouldn't necessarily overshadow the Barbarian or Monk, let alone any of the casters.

The general genre conventions are mirrored in D&D. The caster-martial disparity is part of that convention, even in mythology.

Look at what casters actually /do/ in the source material. Not their rep, but their actions when they're being ganked by the hero. The disparity is there, it's just in the opposite direction you think it is.

 

[Aenorgreen]

I think the OP's only hope is that the one guy he quoted does not reflect the view of everyone else in the group. Poll your group and find out if it does. If so, you're not going to be playing 5E with these guys. You're not going to convince them they're wrong about the game - the points listed were accurate, they just don't like them. They've already given the game a try in actual play, so that's out. Your choices come down to 1) play 5E with different people, 2) keep DMing your previous game, or 3) hand the DM seat over to someone else and play in their preferred game.

The quote is not of just one player, it is a collection of at least three player's responses. So I agree with you that this group is not going to be playing 5E.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Tell the author of that diatribe you'll be happy to play Pathfinder for a while, but (s)he's GMing it.

Damn right. If they like the system so much, let them run it. Better no game than a game you don't want to run.

 

[Celtavian]

Circe could turn men into animals. Either by tapping them with a wand, or by feeding them a magic potion slipped into their food or wine, depending on the version. That was /all/ she did as far as magical power went.

Changing forms of others in Greek mythology was quite common. D&D doesn't emulate Greek mythology perfectly. It takes a piece of it and integrates. I'm sure Circe could do quite a bit more, but that is what she is best known for.

Sorcery was generally created to suit the moral of the story. Mythology was not written for entertainment, but often for education. Most of what magic within it was done to punish.

Casters, and caster-equivalents, like Circe (a daughter of Helios & and grand-daughter of Oceanus), tend to be clever, have a small number of remarkable supernatural powers, and to cultivate and trade on a fearsome/mysterious reputation that they can't really back up when the hero's decapitating them. And, in D&D terms, they would mostly be 'monsters' or NPCs.

There is no specific limit as to what they can do other than the needs of the story or the imagination of the author.

D&D rapidly expand what spells could do to cover just about any supernatural feat ever attributed to just about any caster, artifact, deity or monster in any collection of folklore or nominally-fantasy work of fiction available to it's creators.

Yep.

But, the mechanism remained artillery-like, most spells being cast from a safe distance, and all being so many rounds of magical canister to be expended judiciously at the most opportune moment.

So your defining artillery as cast from a distance? If that is your definition, hard to argue against such a wide breadth.

I don't agree. Spells were meant to simulate different things. Summoners, enchanters, changing the form of targets, putting things to sleep, and the like. All are possible. Adventures must be catered for such a wide field. The main driving component of their artillery type nature is because groups are most easily satisfied with group combat. It's must easier to run combat than create side plots that leaves nothing else for other characters to do while another character is accomplishing his non-combat goal.

Hmmm, well, yes, actually: the name on the left in each of your comparisons there is the Hero, and we all know what happens to the villain.

No. The whole disparity is based on the argument that martial hero is equal to the caster hero in fiction. I haven't found that to be the case in the majority of books and stories. Quite the opposite. The only arguments are the often included caster-martial like an Anomander Rake who is both.

Mind you, Beowulf wouldn't just up and kill Gandalf or Merlin, because murdering old men isn't his thing. Old women who gave birth to trolls, maybe... And neither Gandalf nor Merlin would have any reason to put themselves in such a situation. Merlin would want to set himself up as court magician, and Gandalf would probably be there to retrieve some trinket from the dragon's horde. Both would accomplish their goals with a lot of persuasion and very little magic. Indeed, the same could be said even if we were talking Sturla's vision of Beowulf in world without any overt magic, where Merlin and Gandalf would just be old charlatans.

That can be specifically emulated in D&D if you wish. That is a type of campaign setting where everyone would be playing some type of martial as far as combat is concerned.

That heirarchy is better handled by level than class. There are extremely weak casters in genre (like Skeeve or Tobas or - well, most caster-protagonists, unless it's some Lensmen-esque powertrip, where everyone who matters is a god-being), there are extremely powerful warriors (already listed upthread).

It is handled by level. A low level caster is pretty easy for a martial to kill. From level 1 to maybe 7 or 8, martials can kill casters quite well in games where they don't have access to tons of magic items disposable or otherwise. In 5E martials can kill casters for far longer and even have a great chance in the high teens. But they don't have the breadth of power of a caster, at least a wizard.

Relatively few heroes in myth or genre were defined only by their prowess with a weapon. If you recall any of the old Giants in the Earth articles, the writers would typically give such characters many levels in both fighter and thief, and add special skills and abilities on top. Because heroes were usually pretty varied and remarkable in their talents. D&D has never done that well.

True. I've always advocated for more skills for warriors. In my experience fighting men learn a lot of skills to ply their trade because they do not have magic to rely on to get them by doors, over castle walls, or interrogate prisoners. They learn how to do this using mundane means.

As far as mythical figures, a DM could easily work in a God watching over someone. Or provide the character with mythical abilities. I did this all the time when I was younger. If someone wanted to make Hercules or some demon's son, we made it up. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing this. It's also hard to run as a DM. You can't force a DM to allow this. Martials have extremely high DPR in D&D, add a bunch of magical powers to their repertoire and you have some real problems as a DM.

And, there's no game-balance or game-design reason for it. You could take the basic (and, damn, high DPR as it is, it really is basic) combat power of a 5e Champion fighter, give it all the non-combat utility of a 5e Thief rogue, and still have a class that wouldn't necessarily overshadow the Barbarian or Monk, let alone any of the casters.

Probably so.

Look at what casters actually /do/ in the source material. Not their rep, but their actions when they're being ganked by the hero. The disparity is there, it's just in the opposite direction you think it is.

The caster villain is still a great deal stronger than the hero in those stories.

The hero just happens to be the guy that takes the 1000 year old wizard or whatever caster, demon, etc. out, usually with the luck of the gods or just because he's a badass and the writer wants him to win. You'll read a book where a caster villain is controlling the world, wiping people out with waves of his hand, suddenly the hero shows up and defeats him using some loosely plausible method dreamed up by the writer usually involving a quest for an item, a group working together, catching him unaware, or some similar thing. Even Lord of the Rings, a book I love, required you buy into the idea that a group of hobbits could evade the Dark Lord who was a lesser angel in spirit form who could create rings of power capable of seeing from afar, controlling the will of others, and creating magic that manipulated the world in some fashion. You went with it because it was entertaining to do so. Most stories are this way. D&D is no different.

Heroes are often measured by the villains they fight. Sauron and even the Witchking of Angmar was a great deal stronger than majority of The Fellowship of the Ring, yet he still lost after three thousand plus years of ruling or existing in some fashion. That's the illusion you try to create in your games.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Changing forms of others in Greek mythology was quite common. D&D doesn't emulate Greek mythology perfectly. It takes a piece of it and integrates.

Which is a big part of the problem. A D&D caster can Polymorph because that was a magical power often seen in greek (and celtic, and many other mythologies). It was often the sole power of a villain or monster in a story. Changing his own form is all Proteus could do. It's about all most lycanthropes do. It's all a Skinwalker realy does. It's a 'common' power in mythology, but it's very often a sole and only power that makes a monster dangerous, or magician magical, or story possible.

In D&D, it's a 4th level spell any wizard could cast, one of hundred. Because D&D has combed every myth, legend, tradition, novel, movie and shortstory a guy in the Midwest could find in the early 1970s for any sort of magical stunt, and given /all/ of them to D&D casters.

I'm sure Circe could do quite a bit more, but that is what she is best known for.

Why would you be sure of that. Just because any Magic-user who could cast Polymorph Other could do quite a bit more?

No, look at what these characters actually did in their stories. It's often very, very little, indeed. One or two things, that D&D lifts, bundles, and gives to casters, creating PCs who are vastly more versatile and often more powerful, than individual examples of the archetypes they're based on.

The whole disparity is based on the argument that martial here is equal to the caster hero in fiction. I haven't found that to be the case in the majority of books and stories. Quite the opposite.

Typically, in genre, the hero would be a martial type, and the villain a 'caster,' and the hero would emerge victorious. Caster abilities were limited, both few in number, and in what it took to evoke them, what they could accomplish, who they could effect, and how easily they could be countered (carry a nail iron and he'll be powerless to transform you, crap like that).

The reason caster & martial PCs should have some sort of parity is not because they have it in fiction or myth, but because a game requires it to run well and be enjoyable for all. That's why Vancian was chosen, because it was more practical and less limiting than elaborate rituals. Going with genre would have casters painfully limited, and martial characters dominant.

Caster dominance is an artifact of D&D's failure to achieve that balance.

It is handled by level.

If any disparity called for by plot/theme/genre/whatever can be handled by level, there's no need for the classes to be imbalanced. If you want to run a Fellowship game where Gandalf is much more powerful than Frodo, give him more levels, don't make wizards OP. Heck, give him 10 more levels, Bounded Accuracy will help keep poor Frodo participating.

True. I've always advocated for more skills for warriors. In my experience fighting men learn a lot of skills to ply their trade because the do not have magic to rely on to get them by doors, over castle walls, or interrogate prisoners.

Nod. The Thief was, like Vancian casting, one of those pivotal early - can't really call it anything but a 'mistake' - that has left an indelible mark on the game.

The funny thing is, it's been partially overcome: the Rogue was, eventually, given meaningful combat ability.

As far as mythical figures, a DM could easily work in a God watching over someone. Or provide the character with mythical abilities.

And, there are already Clerics & Paladins.

I did this all the time when I was younger. If someone wanted to make Hercules or some demon's son, we made it up. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing this.

Nothing stopped 4e from doing it with Epic Destinies, either. Demi-God was in the PH1, Hercules was pretty do-able. Not quite spell Atlas for a few minutes, but doable.

It's also hard to run as a DM. You can't force a DM to allow this. Martials have extremely high DPR in D&D, add a bunch of magical powers to their repertoire and you have some real problems as a DM.

An EK has magic and a fighter's DPR, the Warlock's DPR also comes pretty close - in fact, most classes give up very little DPR or durability relative to the fighter's to get quite a lot of magical ability.

The caster villain is still a great deal stronger than the hero in those stories.

Yet he always looses. In a story, that's the author - in a game, it has to be reflected in the stats of the monsters and PCs and the rules of the game. The Caster Villain might be a Legendary Monster in 5e, which sets him up to display some awesome power and threat before the PCs gank him - but, his intimidating power needn't be shared with the wizard PC. In fact, doing so ruins the whole exercise.

 

[Celtavian]

Which is a big part of the problem. A D&D caster can Polymorph because that was a magical power often seen in greek (and celtic, and many other mythologies). It was often the sole power of a villain or monster in a story. Changing his own form is all Proteus could do. It's about all most lycanthropes do. It's all a Skinwalker realy does. It's a 'common' power in mythology, but it's very often a sole and only power that makes a monster dangerous, or magician magical, or story possible.

In D&D, it's a 4th level spell any wizard could cast, one of hundred. Because D&D has combed every myth, legend, tradition, novel, movie and shortstory a guy in the Midwest could find in the early 1970s for any sort of magical stunt, and given /all/ of them to D&D casters.

Can't disagree with the last part. Mythological figures could do other things according to the needs of the story. If a mythological figure needed superhuman strength, they had it. If they needed to be able regenerated, they had it. It all depends.

Why would you be sure of that. Just because any Magic-user who could cast Polymorph Other could do quite a bit more?

Because gods and goddesses could do many things. Circe was a goddess-level magician in a story. There would be no limits on her capabilities other than those imposed by the author. If they required her to do other things, they would have made her do so.

No, look at what these characters actually did in their stories. It's often very, very little, indeed. One or two things, that D&D lifts, bundles, and gives to casters, creating PCs who are vastly more versatile and often more powerful, than individual examples of the archetypes they're based on.

They did little in the story because mythology had no interest in the development of character or story. They incorporated enough to suit the story. It does not mean they didn't have the power to do more. Merlin was rumored to have other powers. Morganna Lef Fay knew different types of magic as did the enchantresses that would charm wandering knights on occasion. It depends a great deal on the story.

If you're talking modern fantasy, figures like Gandalf had many different powers. He could throw fire like he did on the hill with the wolves. He knew hundreds or more spells for sealing doors. He could scry and send his thoughts. He could fire beams of light harmful to the undead. He could go toe to toe with the equivalent of a Balor in battle. He could fell a stone bridge as he did in Khazad-dum. He could speak with animals. The more modern you get, the more the wizards could do.

Mythology is one source used for D&D. Fiction is another one. Wizards in fiction are usually the most powerful ally martial heroes have. If they are the heroes themselves, they usually have immense power greater than their martial comrades. This is modern fiction created before D&D.

If we were to study genre tropes, the caster-martial disparity would exist. It's a very pronounced part of fantasy. You might make a better argument of casters being able to fight as well as martials rather than vice versa. A lot of traditional fantasy casters can throw down with a sword now and then.

Typically, in genre, the hero would be a martial type, and the villain a 'caster,' and the hero would emerge victorious. Caster abilities were limited, both few in number, and in what it took to evoke them, what they could accomplish, who they could effect, and how easily they could be countered (carry a nail iron and he'll be powerless to transform you, crap like that).

Depends. Sometimes the martial has caster allies, in fact this occurs quite often in modern fantasy. The caster ally is usually more powerful than the martials present. One of the most powerful people in the world.

The reason caster & martial PCs should have some sort of parity is not because they have it in fiction or myth, but because a game requires it to run well and be enjoyable for all. That's why Vancian was chosen, because it was more practical and less limiting than elaborate rituals. Going with genre would have casters painfully limited, and martial characters dominant.

Depends. Gandalf was quite powerful. So was Merlin. Then again neither was considered human. Modern fantasy had quite a few powerful wizards that could throw down.

I figured they used Vancian because it was the relatable form of magic. In a lot of fantasy books, the wizard is so much more powerful than the martial allies that they destroy them with a thought. You can't have that level of disparity. That wouldn't be good at all. Tolkien was walking a fine line with Gandalf being able to do too much. Elric was ridiculously powerful with his blade. Wizards in the Conan stories varied a great deal. It was Conan. He always won. It didn't need to make sense.

Martial characters are dominant in fantasy because the are relatable, not because they are powerful.

Caster dominance is an artifact of D&D's failure to achieve that balance.

Caster dominance is an attempt to model a genre convention in a game system with players making choices rather than authors. Players will never make the stupid mistakes authors make casters make. Caster weakness in a book was manufactured to suit the story. A player playing a caster will never choose to manufacture a weakness if he does not have to. A player will do everything in his power to eliminate a weakness. D&D incorporated enough options to make that possible.

That in no way means there isn't a caster-martial disparity genre convention. There most certainly is one. An author is much more capable of manufacturing reasons the caster loses than a DM.

If any disparity called for by plot/theme/genre/whatever can be handled by level, there's no need for the classes to be imbalanced. If you want to run a Fellowship game where Gandalf is much more powerful than Frodo, give him more levels, don't make wizards OP. Heck, give him 10 more levels, Bounded Accuracy will help keep poor Frodo participating.

I'd rather than wizards more powerful. Magic is more powerful than swinging a sword and should be. Anyone that wields magic should be more fearsome and powerful than one that swings a sword. That's how I envision magic should be in a world. If it isn't, doesn't feel like fantasy to me.

You play a martial because you enjoy playing a martial, not to have equal power to a magic user. I hope they never design the game with that type of balance in mind.

The funny thing is, it's been partially overcome: the Rogue was, eventually, given meaningful combat ability.

5E rogue is the best version of the class in my memory. Amazingly fun and really stands out as useful in all aspects of the game.

Nothing stopped 4e from doing it with Epic Destinies, either. Demi-God was in the PH1, Hercules was pretty do-able. Not quite spell Atlas for a few minutes, but doable.

I'm sure they'll offer such options in time.

An EK has magic and a fighter's DPR, the Warlock's DPR also comes pretty close - in fact, most classes give up very little DPR or durability relative to the fighter's to get quite a lot of magical ability.

Not from what I've seen. Fighter has the highest DPR by quite a large margin, especially when novaing.

Yet he always looses. In a story, that's the author - in a game, it has to be reflected in the stats of the monsters and PCs and the rules of the game. The Caster Villain might be a Legendary Monster in 5e, which sets him up to display some awesome power and threat before the PCs gank him - but, his intimidating power needn't be shared with the wizard PC. In fact, doing so ruins the whole exercise.

That is all taken care of in encounter design.

We could research books involving martials and casters in great detail. We would find the caster-martial disparity is present in a vast majority of books. Magic is always viewed by authors as a powerful force beyond the mundane power of martial weapon use. It doesn't make a caster unbeatable. It does make them more powerful and possessing a wider breadth of abilities that mundane martials are often incapable of emulating with non-magical means. Authors handle reigning in powerful casters differently than D&D. It is difficult to reign in casters because players are playing them. They will seek to play with vast magical power in a way that allows them to dominate unlike say Gandalf or Merlin in stories who use their magic to manipulate events to suit their desires or mission. Power for power's sake is often not the driving force of a caster in a story. It's very hard to capture that in a D&D adventure because a player wants power for power's sake. A DM can't impose fictional limits on a player that would cause him to use his power in a manner that didn't make him more powerful than his martial counterparts in the long run.

It is that product of the game that causes the problem. A player will not role-play the caster role in the group dynamic. Instead a caster will revel in his own abilities even if he is overshadowing his companions. That is what causes the problem with the caster-martial disparity in a game. Though magic as this amazingly powerful force in a fantasy world is common to the fantasy genre, it's trickier to manage this in game play without the caster overshadowing other types of characters because of player agency. I deal with the problem on the backend because I want it to exist as part of the game. A fantasy game doesn't feel right to me unless the wizard/casters are frighteningly powerful at high level.