D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[TwoSix]

However, this sort of reasoning is how we get caster supremacy.

Sure, but that's just a relic of the game being born with a complex system for magic and simplistic weapon attacks. I like to imagine an alternate reality where the warriors were Tome of Battle types back in the 70s and the mages just cast various sizes of fireballs.

 

[rmcoen]

A cleric isn't a village priest. A rogue isn't a common pickpocket. A wizard isn't a local scribe. A fighter shouldn't be a town guard of infantryman. Mundanity is for NPCs.

A previous edition - 3e? - had "NPC classes". PCs were Fighters, NPCs were Warriors; PC were Rogues, NPCs were Experts; PC were Clerics and Wizards, NPCs were Adepts. And so on. (Actually, that about covers it.) PCs were just straight up better than NPCs in the same "profession."


Anyway, on topic, "Group 1" are served by the Champion, and maybe the Battlemaster. "Group 2" are served by all the other subclasses that add a dash (or more) of supernatural. My daughter wanted to create a D&D character, but wanted NO MAGIC (which included anything fantastic, even most Barbarian rage) at all... her choices were actually very limited! Champion, Battlemaster, Thief, Inquisitive, Mastermind, Berserker. [that's not meant to be exhaustive, just descriptive, please don't bother correcting the list]

Group "1.5", your target audience, could - IMHO - be simply served reskinning Group 2 subclasses as greater and more fantastic/anime-ish levels of "skill". The warrior in my current campaign does this. He's a Battlemaster 3 / Arcane Trickster 5, but all his spells are flavored to be mundane (color spray is a packet of powdered ghost pepper sprayed through the air; minor illusion (used for ranged obscurity) is a ninja ghost-bomb egg), veteran skill (silvery barbs is just an expert martial maneuver that manoeuvres himself out of danger or a foe into it at the last second), or the slow manifestation of Story-triggered "psionics" (find familiar is just clairvoyance out to 100'; mage hand is telekinesis; even booming blade is just his TK changing his sword into a vibroblade, bladeward is a TK field that acts as a temporary shield). [The "psionics" are a stretch, but his backstory included an inherited (and ceremonially implanted) unknown device, so it served as a great catalyst.]

OR, slightly more effort - but laserllama already did it, as have many others INCLUDE WOTC (cough 4e cough) - have a selection of Battlemaster manoeuvres THAT GET BETTER at higher levels. Not just bigger numbers; the level 7 battlemaster should be able to do things the level 3 novice can't... not just 1pt more damage or AC. The level 17 battlemaster should be tripping godzilla, shifting the positions of every foe within 15', using enemies as shields against fireballs and dominates alike, and swatting both arrows and firebolts out of the air with a flick of his weapon. Not just 2pts more damage or AC, and one guaranteed trick per fight.

I think those in "Group 1" would be okay with their utterly mundane Champion or Battlemaster approaching Jason Statham or John Wick levels of martial capabilities, while those in "Group 1.5" happily step into Captain America-land and hurl a shield so it knocks a tank-turret out of alignment, bounces to KO three soldiers and disarm a fourth, then returns. Sorry, I meant "disrupts a spellcaster's spell, kills three minion warriors, grants a contested Athletics check on a fourth, then returns". That first bit could be a hit that forces a concentration check like an improved Mageslayer feat, or a reskinned counterspell magical effect, or a unique new maneuver that... I don't know... allows the Fighter to change the caster's targets or maybe cause a Wild Surge.

Just cater to everyone's tastes by maybe having a [tag] (or three) so the "my fighter is mundane" (Group 1) folks can filter things to whatever level of believability they are okay with. Their level 1-7 experience isn't disrupted, because they know their level 20 abilities are still "explainable" in a mortal way. Group 1.5 has more choices, which perhaps are less numbers-y and more epicly versatile... perhaps straying into wuxia-land and anime for the last 5-10 levels. And Group 2 is still fine - they took Eldritch Knight or multiclassed anyway, no worries.

 

[CreamCloud0]

However, this sort of reasoning is how we get caster supremacy.

although Wizards seem to be under an impression of otherwise, simple and complex is not actually the same dividing line as martial and caster

 

[nevin]

Indeed. The problem with 3.5 is that eventually every player was a caster and DMs couldn't stand the quantity of magic nonsense.

No the problem with 3.0 and 3.5 was it started out with a design philosophy stated by Wizards that they were throwing everything out there they could think of and it was up to the DM to decide what was appropriate for their games. But eventually every single game turned into a fight because someone wanted something that was either ridiculous, (say the 10hd battle cat out of the barbarian splat book that was a better warrior than the barbarian, and was so poorly written that many thought thier 1st level barbarian could have one.), or simply didn't match the game being run like say a Neogi cleric in a non spell jammer game. That's the first time I remember "core rules only" becoming a normal thing. It wasn't that the players became magic user's it was that they became anime action hero's. Nothing wrong with that kind of game but If I'm going to run that game TMNT or Hero's unlimited has better rules for it.

 

[nevin]

A previous edition - 3e? - had "NPC classes". PCs were Fighters, NPCs were Warriors; PC were Rogues, NPCs were Experts; PC were Clerics and Wizards, NPCs were Adepts. And so on. (Actually, that about covers it.) PCs were just straight up better than NPCs in the same "profession."


Anyway, on topic, "Group 1" are served by the Champion, and maybe the Battlemaster. "Group 2" are served by all the other subclasses that add a dash (or more) of supernatural. My daughter wanted to create a D&D character, but wanted NO MAGIC (which included anything fantastic, even most Barbarian rage) at all... her choices were actually very limited! Champion, Battlemaster, Thief, Inquisitive, Mastermind, Berserker. [that's not meant to be exhaustive, just descriptive, please don't bother correcting the list]

Group "1.5", your target audience, could - IMHO - be simply served reskinning Group 2 subclasses as greater and more fantastic/anime-ish levels of "skill". The warrior in my current campaign does this. He's a Battlemaster 3 / Arcane Trickster 5, but all his spells are flavored to be mundane (color spray is a packet of powdered ghost pepper sprayed through the air; minor illusion (used for ranged obscurity) is a ninja ghost-bomb egg), veteran skill (silvery barbs is just an expert martial maneuver that manoeuvres himself out of danger or a foe into it at the last second), or the slow manifestation of Story-triggered "psionics" (find familiar is just clairvoyance out to 100'; mage hand is telekinesis; even booming blade is just his TK changing his sword into a vibroblade, bladeward is a TK field that acts as a temporary shield). [The "psionics" are a stretch, but his backstory included an inherited (and ceremonially implanted) unknown device, so it served as a great catalyst.]

OR, slightly more effort - but laserllama already did it, as have many others INCLUDE WOTC (cough 4e cough) - have a selection of Battlemaster manoeuvres THAT GET BETTER at higher levels. Not just bigger numbers; the level 7 battlemaster should be able to do things the level 3 novice can't... not just 1pt more damage or AC. The level 17 battlemaster should be tripping godzilla, shifting the positions of every foe within 15', using enemies as shields against fireballs and dominates alike, and swatting both arrows and firebolts out of the air with a flick of his weapon. Not just 2pts more damage or AC, and one guaranteed trick per fight.

I think those in "Group 1" would be okay with their utterly mundane Champion or Battlemaster approaching Jason Statham or John Wick levels of martial capabilities, while those in "Group 1.5" happily step into Captain America-land and hurl a shield so it knocks a tank-turret out of alignment, bounces to KO three soldiers and disarm a fourth, then returns. Sorry, I meant "disrupts a spellcaster's spell, kills three minion warriors, grants a contested Athletics check on a fourth, then returns". That first bit could be a hit that forces a concentration check like an improved Mageslayer feat, or a reskinned counterspell magical effect, or a unique new maneuver that... I don't know... allows the Fighter to change the caster's targets or maybe cause a Wild Surge.

Just cater to everyone's tastes by maybe having a [tag] (or three) so the "my fighter is mundane" (Group 1) folks can filter things to whatever level of believability they are okay with. Their level 1-7 experience isn't disrupted, because they know their level 20 abilities are still "explainable" in a mortal way. Group 1.5 has more choices, which perhaps are less numbers-y and more epicly versatile... perhaps straying into wuxia-land and anime for the last 5-10 levels. And Group 2 is still fine - they took Eldritch Knight or multiclassed anyway, no worries.

thing is stuff like this is what used to happen in 1e games that I remember at high levels. then we got more rules (2ed), then we got more stuff (3rd thru PF 1e). then we tried to take it all away and start over. More rules makes it harder to run games where the Warrior throw's his shield and hits the magic user and causes a wild surge or loss of target. Because once you make those rules then someone makes concentration rules (worst rule for mages ever. a hit should stop the spell. <flame on>) and then monks get a rule to avoid the battle tactics etc. LESS rules is More if you want more flexible characters. More rules to force DM's into submission won't work, we ignore the rules we don't like. Or make table rules to mitigate them.... or fudge dice rolls or whatever it takes to keep the story rolling. And if the guy that's telling the story doesn't like the kind of story you want then, there aren't enough rules to fix that.

 

[Alzrius]

A previous edition - 3e? - had "NPC classes". PCs were Fighters, NPCs were Warriors; PC were Rogues, NPCs were Experts; PC were Clerics and Wizards, NPCs were Adepts. And so on. (Actually, that about covers it.) PCs were just straight up better than NPCs in the same "profession."

NPC classes weren't new, but 3E did make a respectable effort in terms of PC exceptionalism by standardizing them that way. But it immediately undercut itself by having many (I'd argue most) NPCs that PCs interacted with (typically, though not always, adversaries) use PC classes. While this made sense for notable characters such as Elminster, Mordenkainen, etc., it very quickly started to seem like NPCs with levels in NPC classes were the exception, rather than the rule.

 

[rmcoen]

thing is stuff like this is what used to happen in 1e games that I remember at high levels. then we got more rules (2ed), then we got more stuff (3rd thru PF 1e). then we tried to take it all away and start over. More rules makes it harder to run games where the Warrior throw's his shield and hits the magic user and causes a wild surge or loss of target. Because once you make those rules then someone makes concentration rules (worst rule for mages ever. a hit should stop the spell. <flame on>) and then monks get a rule to avoid the battle tactics etc. LESS rules is More if you want more flexible characters. More rules to force DM's into submission won't work, we ignore the rules we don't like. Or make table rules to mitigate them.... or fudge dice rolls or whatever it takes to keep the story rolling. And if the guy that's telling the story doesn't like the kind of story you want then, there aren't enough rules to fix that.

You're totally right about rules begetting more rules. I have absolutely seen that in action in this and other games. ("These [insert sci-fi weapon here] bypass shields!" "Oh, but these shields resist being bypassed!")

The shield throw example was an off-the-cuff idea as I was typing. But the "reskinned counterspell" isn't a new rule, it's taking an existing concept and changing the special effect. Still 60' (can only throw the aerodynamic shield so far), still has to see the target (so the shield can be thrown at it), isn't necessarily guaranteed (depends on spell level and skill check), and could, in theory, be prevented (like counterspell vs. counterspell) by other defensive options -- perhaps in this case, a shield spell blocks the thrown shield. And maybe the 17th level battlemaster hurling that shield had to spend his only d12 Superiority Die to do it, leaving him with only d10s and d8s for the rest of the fight.

And keep in mind - WotC invents new spells with every product release, from cantrips and 1st level spells right up to 9th level. Why can't they (or we) add "higher level" BMstr moves? They don't add new defenses against magic (that I recall, anyway). And "mundane" defenses already exist for every character and creature (AC and saves, Atheltics or Acrobatics skill checks), so no changes required there. The monk can already "avoid the battle tactic" with his AC, his Deflect Missiles and Patient Defense class features, and so on.

 

[nevin]

oh sure and the new spells that do things they took away from older spells because they thought it was too powerful is part of the problem. Spell descriptions are rules.

 

[rmcoen]

NPC classes weren't new, but 3E did make a respectable effort in terms of PC exceptionalism by standardizing them that way. But it immediately undercut itself by having many (I'd argue most) NPCs that PCs interacted with (typically, though not always, adversaries) use PC classes. While this made sense for notable characters such as Elminster, Mordenkainen, etc., it very quickly started to seem like NPCs with levels in NPC classes were the exception, rather than the rule.

Well I won't waste time arguing that, since I always make my own worlds and adventures - I know that I was consistent in applying the concept, with unique NPCs being the only ones with PC classes. [In fact, I even took it a step further and wrote rules for "upgrading" existing NPC class levels to PC class levels. For a player who wanted to join the game by taking over an NPC that already existed, and having them grow under the PCs' tutelage.]

 

[Tony Vargas]

However, this sort of reasoning is how we get caster supremacy.

The basic idea of complex class has lower floor/higher ceiling, simple class is dead-on effective isn't going to give you caster supremacy, by itself.

There's the additional step of insisting that casters must be complex, and non-casters must be simple, so that the ceiling of the former is always higher than the latter.

D&D obviously takes that step, and, when it didn't go far enough, attracted a surprising amount of nerdrage.

The idea has other issues, though, like low floor/high ceiling sounds fair, if the average lies in about the same plane as the simpler character's consistent performance. Thing is, it might if perfectly designed and measured over the population of all characters of each class, but it probably won't in terms of actual play experience. The floor is mainly going to be experienced by the less skilled player learning that, no, you aren't allowed to play a caster, you must play a Champion. The ceiling is going to be consistently hit - if not exceeded - by system masters.

If you do want to make the game more complicated by balancing it around different tiers of class complexity, the balance target should be to give the simple characters solid, viable effectiveness as their floor, and a slightly higher ceiling if played optimally, then give the complex classes basically no floor, just, when misplayed, they die or something, and a design ceiling of viable effectiveness (which would, inevitably, be exceeded by system mastery, since perfect balance is impossible). Thus, players looking for a challenge would pick the complex classes, and those looking for a fun power fantasy, could be directed to the simpler options.

D&D in the 80s gave indications of going for that, at least, in the single digit levels.

But, absolutely, each broad concept should have both a simple and a complex option, something D&D only flirted with at the very end of 4e. Essentials had already, 2 years in, re-introduced simple martials/complex casters, but, the game could still be played with all prior options, giving both simple & complex martial options - with the introduction, 2 years later, of the Elementalist sorcerer in HotEC, the very last supplement to feature sub-classes, at all, a simple arcane caster option finally existed, as well.