D&D 5E Q&A February 14th: Lines, Finding Spells & Fighter Identity

[Neonchameleon]

You're missing something. And that something is, "It is ****ing impossible to a) allow magic and b) have the non-magical people be as versatile as the magical ones."

No I'm not. I'm missing that a) Magic should have no limits and b) that that is a reason not to try. If we start with the idea in D&D next that all non-casters get two backgrounds, but learning magic takes one then it a least starts to even the odds.

You can balance them in combat, but even super-strong Hercules - if he were transported to the modern day - would have to stand aside to let his hacker friend 'perform magic' by gathering information, destroying people's finances, and deploying 'summoned creatures' in the form of cops reporting to falsified radio chatter.

Objection - special pleading. In case 2 we're going to take an evoker to the modern day and match the wizard with a high level thief. When you want something done without blowing things up you fetch the thief, not the evoker. Alternatively in case 3 we have a wizard whose magic ceases working when within 2' or iron or steel. At that point yes the wizard is more flexible - but also routinely has to stand aside. In case 4 the wizard is an AD&D wizard with casting times that are one minute or more. Our non-wizards are 3.X and fight in multiples of 6 seconds. You don't think that the wizard often has to stand aside there? In case 4 we have a WFRP wizard. Sure he's more versatile than the non-wizards, but if he uses too much magic demons will eat his face and his body will warp into a horrible monstrosity.

Oh, and also, he's talking about the Fighter class. Fighter PCs can still take other specialties and backgrounds so they have access to stuff that will be useful out of combat.

 

[Kraydak]

You're missing something. And that something is, "It is ****ing impossible to a) allow magic and b) have the non-magical people be as versatile as the magical ones."

But they aren't saying that the problem is hard and, technically, unsolvable (which I'd, sadly, agree with). They are saying "We don't give a crap." There are ways to ameliorate the situation without completely solving it, but they apparently can't be bothered to even try.

I kinda DON'T think spellcasters should be as strong as warriors in combat. Warriors should win in a fight. Experts should win when time is tight but fighting is untenable. And Mages should win when there's plenty of time and fighting is untenable. Magic might be balanced if most spells took minutes to cast. But hey, that's not D&D. You can either nerf magic, or give mundane folks nigh-supernatural abilities. And that's going to piss some people off either way.

And for anyone reading this who thinks Fighters outperforming Wizards in combat would be a problem, the vast experience of Post UA-1e and 2e was that it *wasn't* a problem. There (especially in 1e), Fighters did massively outperform Wizards in combat, and there wasn't much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Let Fighters Fight, while the Wizard contributes a bit on the sides in combat to stave off player boredom, while the Wizard dominates out of combat, with the Fighter contributing enough to, again, stave off player boredom. Make a split like that, and, surprisingly, you'll even get somewhat better (not pure-combat) adventures!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Please tell me I'm missing something?

I think you're missing optimism. Or at least, a lack of pessimism.

TBH, so far, NEXT is giving all characters exactly one thing for "stuff to do outside of combat": ability checks. Sometimes with a bonus.

If a character gets anything else, it is because they have a special capacity in that area (a charming rogue or a wizard who casts enchantments or a cleric of love; a sneaky rogue or a wizard who uses illusions or a cleric of trickery).

Fighters might get a bonus to STR checks or a bonus to CON checks (or both), or an automatic background, and that would be an out-of-combat bonus. Less than a specialist would get, but enough to characterize them as a "determinator" in any event that called for STR or CON checks (forced marches, bending bars/lifting gates, being exposed to the elements, etc.).

Any more specific abilities I would imagine are going to be part of a bigger "exploration" or "interaction" module -- not necessary for playing the archetypal D&D (where DM judgement handles those things), but for those who want it, useful. And we haven't seen those rules yet.

I think the apparent lack of things for Fighters to do outside of combat is actually more about the lack of existence of any rules for anyone to do much of anything outside of combat (except for ability checks, sometimes with a bonus), than anything specific to Fighters. The only characters who do much outside of combat now are characters whose archetypes really depend on it, and even they ain't got much.

 

[Iosue]

I think the apparent lack of things for Fighters to do outside of combat is actually more about the lack of existence of any rules for anyone to do much of anything outside of combat (except for ability checks, sometimes with a bonus), than anything specific to Fighters. The only characters who do much outside of combat now are characters whose archetypes really depend on it, and even they ain't got much.

I think the problem is along the lines of what someone mentioned in the "Why can't fighters get skills" thread. They're approaching the game from the idea that background provide skills. Rogues, of course, get extra skills as their schtick. And then Wizards and Clerics, as classes, are basically like backgrounds. I mean, regardless of other Background, Clerics have to have Religious Knowledge, right? Kung-fu monks need to have those acrobatic skills, right? Wizards have to have some lore they are knowledgeable in, right? The problem is, and I think this column makes it clear, they don't have a "handle" for the fighter. The fighter is the guy who fights. That's all they've got. The class conception is just much broader than any other. The class in OD&D through 1e (and Classic D&D) at least was conceived as a soldier of sorts, and if they thought of the fighter that way, it would be the easiest thing in the world to give him a soldierly bonus skill. But their difficulty is that not everyone wants their fighter to be that. If you choose the Wizard, you're choosing a certain archetype. If you choose the fighter, though, it means you want to be good at fighting, but that might be an armored knight, a Mifune-like grizzled samurai, a Westley-type swashbuckler, or a Luke Skywalker-type farm boy with his father's sword.

I understand the problem, but I think if you're going to give Wizards, Clerics, Rogues, and Monks all a bonus skill, you should probably be giving one to the Fighter and Barbarian. Track and Handle Animal would be pretty cromulent bonus skills for a Barbarian. I'd say give the Fighter his choice of Knowledge (Warfare), Ride, Handle Animal, or Intimidate. Or come up with a new general fightery skill that all fighter's get automatically, like Athletics.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem is, and I think this column makes it clear, they don't have a "handle" for the fighter. The fighter is the guy who fights. That's all they've got.

I don't think that's true. I think their idea is that the fighter is the "warrior." Which is about a lot more than fighting -- it's about battle and conflict and war as a lifestyle choice.

Which means that they might have, regardless of their other background, skills like Survival, or Military History, or Monster Lore, or Endurance. Ride works great, Intimidate is fine.

I think if you're going to give Wizards, Clerics, Rogues, and Monks all a bonus skill, you should probably be giving one to the Fighter and Barbarian.

Yeah, I'm pro-this, but I think there's two different levels at work. Some people seem to be assuming that Fighters will never get any skill bonus as a matter of principle for WotC (which I don't really buy), and therefore will never be able to "do anything" outside of combat.

If you get a bonus to all STR-related skills, you get to do things outside of combat. Saying you get a bonus to all STR related skills, and saying you get a bonus to Athletics are essentially saying the same thing -- the first is actually better, since it applies to more.

 

[Garthanos]

huh? Its just a suggestion. Why shoehorn in a completely different system into a game when other games do exactly what you want and are built for it?

Your comment was a veiled "go way"... or very much came off like that. I have DM'd GURPS and played some HERO. They are lacking in a number of ways but in general are less similar to what was being discussed (allowing maneuvers/versatility to be learned dynamically in story) than elements in D&D. The only thing they have better suited is a social environment where the Fighting-man archetype hasn't been shoe horned in to the LAME category.

 

[Iosue]

I don't think that's true. I think their idea is that the fighter is the "warrior." Which is about a lot more than fighting -- it's about battle and conflict and war as a lifestyle choice.

Which means that they might have, regardless of their other background, skills like Survival, or Military History, or Monster Lore, or Endurance. Ride works great, Intimidate is fine.

"Warrior" still sounds too vague to me, but I think we've arrived at the same destination by different paths.

Yeah, I'm pro-this, but I think there's two different levels at work. Some people seem to be assuming that Fighters will never get any skill bonus as a matter of principle for WotC (which I don't really buy), and therefore will never be able to "do anything" outside of combat.

If you get a bonus to all STR-related skills, you get to do things outside of combat. Saying you get a bonus to all STR related skills, and saying you get a bonus to Athletics are essentially saying the same thing -- the first is actually better, since it applies to more.

I agree with all of this. I know my feedback in the last survey had to do with giving the fighter a little something extra outside combat, and I'm probably not the only one. There's still quite a ways to go, and while the fighter isn't quite where I'd want him, I certainly don't think he's finished, and am willing to wait and see.

Of course, right after I sent my survey they came out with the Basic, Standard, and Advanced model, which I like very much. In my own games, I'm likely to just forego skills altogether, and use the Basic game.

 

[Obryn]

Well, there goes any interest I had left in D&D Next.

Translation: Fighters show who they are all the time but we only care about whether fighters can fight.

Translation: The fighters get nothing.

Translation: Out of combat it's Spellcasters Uber Alles and we're even thinking of nerfing the rogue so they only get as many skills as the wizard or cleric, but the wizard or cleric can use spells as well as skills.

Please tell me I'm missing something?

That's pretty much how I read it, too.

I think it's best to just say this article meant my pessimism is somewhat justified.

 

[Klaus]

There are a few common threads that run through all warrior-type characters:

- Combat Prowess: whether through hefting a giant maul, weaving with sword and shield or flashing a rapier, no one can pull off maneuvers reliably like a warrior.
- Self-reliance: whether stoic hoplite, jaded veteran or cocky swashbuckler, warriors trust in themselves and their ability to overcome obstacles. "No time to bleed" and all that. This also means that a warrior should be harder to sway/influence/beguile/scare than he would otherwise be due to Wisdom, Intelligence or Charisma.

 

[TwoSix]

I also wonder how realistic it would be to run a NEXT game where the only abilities you ever received were in the form of treasure. Wizards had no spells, fighter had no maneuvers, rogues had no tricks, unless they quested for them....I find the concept strangely alluring.

I would totally play that. Everyone is a generic adventurer class, but has a background/specialty/theme whatever they are nowadays. The guy with high strength grabs the fiery sword, and the smart guy tries to read the rune covered scroll.