D&D 5E Rule of Three: 7 Feb. 2014

[Argyle King]

I'd argue that, at this point, Superman has become almost more of a plot device than a character in many circumstances.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

In older editions, the high-level wizard being acle to cast spells like "Wish" or "Teleport" was offset by the low amount (d4) of HP's wizard get by level. (As opposed to d10 for Fighters.)

So, any decently equipped fighter should be able to put some serious hurt on a wizard fairly quickly, in a straight-up fight.

Moreover, since they were so squishy, any wizard who survived to become name-level (or heaven-forfend) ARchmage had truly EARNED that qualification.

While, [even with "Save or Die" effects mostly a non-issue], game-balance for 3.5 and Pathfinder (in my experience) has nominally shifted towards wizards/arcane superiority, I'm not sure that DDN will carry on this tradition; it's fat too soon to tell, wihtout even a finalized ruleset available.

 

[Argyle King]

In older editions, the high-level wizard being acle to cast spells like "Wish" or "Teleport" was offset by the low amount (d4) of HP's wizard get by level. (As opposed to d10 for Fighters.)

So, any decently equipped fighter should be able to put some serious hurt on a wizard fairly quickly, in a straight-up fight.

Moreover, since they were so squishy, any wizard who survived to become name-level (or heaven-forfend) ARchmage had truly EARNED that qualification.

While, [even with "Save or Die" effects mostly a non-issue], game-balance for 3.5 and Pathfinder (in my experience) has nominally shifted towards wizards/arcane superiority, I'm not sure that DDN will carry on this tradition; it's fat too soon to tell, wihtout even a finalized ruleset available.

I can't speak for older editions, but the problem I see with 3rd (and still in Pathfinder sometimes) is that many of the most broken spells don't need to deal damage to kill you and thus totally bypass the defenses that a warrior (or even monsters really) would typically have. I'm also of the opinion that Touch AC tends to scale rather poorly with level.

I have no way of knowing since I didn't design the game, but I believe the idea was that Touch AC would work well as a target for spells since mages tend to have poorer attack bonuses. In actual play, it doesn't work out though; the difference between regular AC and Touch AC is so drastic in some cases that rolling is often a formality. Though, as I was starting to say, some of the most broken spells aren't one which deal damage; some of those don't even require a to-hit roll.

As you said, there's no way to tell if that's how things will be in 5th without seeing a finalized rule set. I have some opinions based on playtesting, but I'd dare say those are flawed due to being based on incomplete rules. Still, I'd hazard to guess that the final product will at least be similar enough to what I've playtested that some of the ideas I have about the game are at least partially valid. (Otherwise, I don't see the point of the playtest... if the final product looks nothing like it.)

 

[Incenjucar]

The notion of wizards turning fighters to dust is fine... if it takes the wizard a drawn-out ritual requiring rare ingredients and mementos (hair clippings, a favorite childhood toy, etc), a special location, and the danger of things going terribly wrong, as well as the risk that the fighter will be able to counter it using similar ritualistic processes. That would actually be magical.

What we have instead is wizards wake up and decide which Omega-Level Marvel Comics character they want to be that day while the fighter isn't even playing Captain America.

 

[TwoSix]

I tend to view the 4 base classes as belonging to two different axes: Supernatural-Practical and Proactive-Reactive.

Wizards are the Proactive Supernatural class. Fighters are the Reactive Practical class.

Wizards (and Rogues, as the other Proactive class) should reward planning and strategizing to a far greater degree than the Fighter and Cleric do. That's the essential divide between the classes that needs to be protected.

The trick is recognizing that while a wizard can and should defeat encounters they have time to make considerations for, their strategic options need to be drastically limited once combat is entered. (I'm defining combat here as roll initiative, track HPs, roll attacks and saves. Fireballing an orc camp before they're aware of you is NOT combat, any more than making the orcs fall into an illusion-covered pit is.) Quite simply, a wizard's offense should have a dependency on distance and time. There's nothing wrong with limited at-will combat spells to add variety, but a group of rogues and wizards that are in a melee should quickly realize they've made some very poor decisions.

Likewise, a group of fighters and clerics should be the group that relishes a melee beatdown, as they'll be at comparatively little risk, and capable of facing numerous combat encounters due to natural + magical endurance. (High HPs and AC + healing and defensive spells.) But give them a week to plan, and there's relatively little change in their approach. They lack the spells and skills to leverage foreknowledge into a different strategic approach.

The brilliant general or battle mage (or any other mixed archetype) should be the result of backgrounds, multiclassing, and possibly different class choices.

 

[Obryn]

In older editions, the high-level wizard being acle to cast spells like "Wish" or "Teleport" was offset by the low amount (d4) of HP's wizard get by level. (As opposed to d10 for Fighters.)

So, any decently equipped fighter should be able to put some serious hurt on a wizard fairly quickly, in a straight-up fight.

Moreover, since they were so squishy, any wizard who survived to become name-level (or heaven-forfend) ARchmage had truly EARNED that qualification.

While, [even with "Save or Die" effects mostly a non-issue], game-balance for 3.5 and Pathfinder (in my experience) has nominally shifted towards wizards/arcane superiority, I'm not sure that DDN will carry on this tradition; it's fat too soon to tell, wihtout even a finalized ruleset available.

The missing X Factor here for 1e to 2e is how a spell target's saving throws kept getting better and better, regardless of what the wizard did. That was shattered in 3e.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Powerful magic (such as classic D&D) against Humans in Metal should win everytime. . .

Isn't it possible to view PC Fighters as more than "Humans in Metal" though? Shouldn't they be Heroes, and just as playable/powerful/capable-of-impacting-the game-world as the other PC classes? It would seem that D&DNext is trying to give them the tools and abilities to finally live up to what they should be.

 

[Derren]

Isn't it possible to view PC Fighters as more than "Humans in Metal" though? Shouldn't they be Heroes, and just as playable/powerful/capable-of-impacting-the game-world as the other PC classes? It would seem that D&DNext is trying to give them the tools and abilities to finally live up to what they should be.

Problem is, the world is rarely impacted by the martial power of one person.

 

[Primal]

The missing X Factor here for 1e to 2e is how a spell target's saving throws kept getting better and better, regardless of what the wizard did. That was shattered in 3e.

Exactly! And fighters who damaged a wizard would disrupt his spell, which balanced things a bit (at least if the wizard didn't have Stoneskin on him). When we converted our high-level AD&D characters to 3E, I was shocked to realize that my fighter died at least once every session, sometimes even two or three times! And most often due to "poor" saves (i.e. 'cuz I only had something like +12 Fort and +8 Will, and needed to roll 15+ every time). I got to read most of the comics and novels in my DM's book shelf during those 3E years, just waiting to be raised or resurrected.

I've always thought that the logic behind "squishy-wizards-earning-the-right-to-rule-the-world-if-they-survive" type of reasoning is seriously flawed. I've played every iteration of the game since BECMI, and it never felt right, especially considering that today's paradigms are different from those days. However, at least in AD&D your fighter had decent saves and could automatically disrupt spellcasting. 4E added a lot more balance between classes, and Pathfinder has a lot of archetypes and feats to make fighters more "specialized" (for example, you can pick up a few feats to disrupt spells and deflect ray spells with your shield).

Extra attacks vs. Wish, Miracle, Power Word : Kill, etc.? Sheesh... I'd hoped that 5E would have learned a few lessons from 4E.

Yet this is just my opinion. I know a lot of people enjoy a different kind of game, and that's just fine.

 

[Argyle King]

Problem is, the world is rarely impacted by the martial power of one person.

I would very strongly agree.

Caesar
Genghis Khan
Alexander The Great
Cao Cao
Sun Tzu
Bruce Lee


In one way or another, these names (and this is by no means anywhere close to being a comprehensive list) quite literally defined parts of the world we live in due to their mastery over martial concepts. In some cases, the things we believe; the things we think; our culture -even today- is defined by the history some of those names carved. ...and I'm only limiting my choices to real world history. If I start to consider literature, movies, and entertainment, names like Kull The Conqueror; Conan, Barristan Selmy, King Arthur, and various others come to mind. Heck, even D&D's lore itself has heroes who are known for their martial abilities; Drizzt Do'Urden, Sturm Brightblade, and Lord Soth were of great martial prowess.

(Though, admittedly, Soth doesn't exactly fit into my list since he was also a death knight; still he was a renowned knight already before gaining his other powers.)