Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6557854" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Okay, then in that case Pug definitely fits within the "heroic fantasy" genre for sure, and therefore blowing up planets is something that wizards can do in heroic fantasy but not in D&D. QED. If I needed more examples within your chosen genre-as-I-understand-it I couldn't pick Harry Potter (YA fantasy) or Niven's Warlock (since the Warlock is already a wizard when he becomes a protagonist and not a farm boy), so I'd look instead towards Steven Erikson (Anomander Rake and Lady Envy stand out as the most obvious examples of bigger-than-5E wizards, and of course Dassem Ultor and Onos T'oolan are the most obvious examples of bigger-than-5E fighters) and, oh, Rand al-Thor from Wheel of Time. I'd have to do some research to find specific examples for Rand since I didn't read the whole series, but the first book leads one to believe he can erase mountains and crack the continental crust, and I think he just gets bigger and badder as time goes on.So the upshot is: claims that D&D wizards are always better than genre wizards while D&D fighters are always worse than genre fighters are unfounded. Even if you restrict genre to only "heroic fantasy" as you've defined it above (note: you're using a different definition than the 5E DMG), there's still wide variation within genre, and D&D is not at the upper bound of that variation for wizards nor the lower bound for fighters. You could perhaps make an argument that Champion/Battlemaster fighters are uninteresting to you personally, and I would agree personally because Eldritch Knights have more knobs and dials and I like turning knobs and dials. But I can also imagine having fun with a Champion, especially if I were playing Conan in a sword and sorcery environment.However, if you add whole bunches of 4E-style AEDU powers to the Champion, I would have zero fun playing a Champion in a sword-and-sorcery environment and would quit that game in disgust at having my suspension of disbelief broken and the theme of the 5E fighter broken simultaneously. (That theme is "consistency". I can live with Action Surges and Second Wind because they're only 20% of the class, but if the class ever becomes 50% or 75% about limited-use resources it's no longer a fighter, it's something much less fun, a spellcaster by another name and with incoherent fluff.)YMMV obviously.P.S. I also don't mind making the fighter more magical. I mean, I like the Eldritch Knight, and that's a magical fighter. So is Onos T'oolan, he's a zombie neanderthal with a magical flint sword and weird magical powers. I wouldn't mind seeing fighters be more like the Knights Radiant from Brandon Sanderson's epic fantasy either, although those guys are larger-than-D&D and wouldn't translate directly. What I would object to is someone trying to model Onos T'oolan but make him "non-magical" because "martials" need more awesome and "casters" already have plenty. That's incoherent. He's got powers because he's got magic via his warren. You can't have it both ways unless you invent some other power source like psionics or nanotechnology, and the latter is out of genre for D&D.</blockquote>

Verification