D&D 5E The Door, Player Expectations, and why 5e can't unify the fanbase.

[Tovec]

EDIT: I give up completely. This reply just doesn't want to be posted.

 

[Zustiur]

And that's getting through an adamantium door?

I didn't mention adamantium. I said 'DC 17'.

1: That is an extremely edge case and railroad-captures are considered poor design for a reason.

Agreed, but it was necessary for the point of the conversation here...

2: The Cleric's laughing. He waits for dawn and meditates and suddenly has a full loadout of spells. He then blasts the door off its hinges.

Yes, that's what I thought too. I'm not happy about that being a valid answer given the situation the other characters are in. How might we fix that? 4E seems to suggest that everyone should get everything back over night, just like the cleric. I don't find that answer satisfying. I'm looking for alternatives.

The rogue might be able to pick the lock for himself and everyone else depending on the no-tools penalty.

Something we agree on. I'd suggest that it should take the rogue a lot less time to achieve this at high level than at low.

The fighter, if mundane, is stuffed. He can't batter down the door. He can't break the bars - he's not as strong as the ogres the cell was designed for. He can't pick the lock. And he can't magic his way out. He needs to wait for someone to open his cell door and put a weapon in his hand. (Or he can improvise - but so can everyone else.) Of course I believe that a high level fighter should be able to plait the bars of the cell then use them as an improvised spear and lever. But you don't.

You seem to have missed the point of my post entirely. I want to know what you think should happen. I was not asking you to tell me what I think. I already know what I think.

The no items, captured scenario exists entirely to present a situation where a high level party might be faced with a DC 17 door in the first place. In fact, it basically exists because I knew someone was going to say "Fighters need to be more than magic item mules unless they can make their own magic items." Which you did.

I'm asking what the difference should be between low level play and high level play. What should a fighter be able to do differently (bearing in mind that we're talking about the person, not his equipment)?

If you believe the fighter should be able to plait steel bars, I want to understand why. Is it that you see all characters as 'beyond human' in a comic book super hero kind of way? Do you see fighters as somehow transcending their humanity to become godlike in some manner? Perhaps you feel that the close presence of magic (items and spellcasters) throughout their adventuring life has altered their DNA, giving them super-human abilities. I want to know, so that I can understand why you think an otherwise non-magical human fighter should be able to bend steel that easily.

So, again, we face the pervasive double-standard that has calcified around martial archetypes in D&D. While classic D&D took inspiration for magical abilities from every conceivable source, from myth and legend, to literature, to fantasy and science-fiction film and TV, and made them into spells that could be cast and items that could (eventually) be made, martial archetypes were made super-humanly durable, deadly, and lucky, but not given much along the lines of detailed extraordinary abilities drawn from the same sources as magic was. The community from fairly early on, ran in that direction, limiting characters without magic to fairly strict RL-realism, and leaving the door open for magic to do just anything. The inherent mechanical imbalances in the game itself much surely have encouraged this, and the two fed on each other.

Thank you for seeing what I was getting at.

The fundamental question here is 'what is a fighter?' But I'll focus on a different question first:
"What should a fighter be able to do?"
There really seems to be two sides to this argument; those who want the fighter to remain mortal, albeit highly trained, and those who want him to transcend the abilities of mortal man. I can easily accept wizards bending the rules of physics, because they're utilizing an imaginary force (magic) to do so. Yet, it has long been established that DND fighters do not utilize that force, so why should they be able to [for example] bend steel as if it were rope?

This is about the type of story being told as much as anything else.
One story remains a lot more consistent with reality as we know it - Steel is hard to bend. The other pushes ever further into the realms of the fantastic - where we invent adamantine, god-steel and other imaginary substances specifically to ensure that the world can provide a consistent level of challenge to these god-men.

Do we let logic dictate the mechanics, or do we come up with mechanics first, then make up a million fantastic clauses (or replacements for steel) to ensure that those mechanics make sense?
Do we let the story dictate the mechanics, or do we let the mechanics dictate the story?

 

[chaochou]

In short, the problem with 5E fighters isn't the fighter, its the combat system they are supposed to "play" in.

My experience across a lot of RPGs is that fighters are far more satisfying to play where hand to hand combat is quick and deadly, rather than attritional.

I see a lot of suggestions for blocks, grapples and trips - but really they don't change the fighter paradigm: limited abilities any kid learns in the playground which are rendered almost irrelevant the moment a caster has access to 3rd or 4th level spells.

A game of gonzo wizards and clerics needs, imo, equally gonzo fighters (and thieves). They should be looking at abilities like "Rip its head off" or "Skewer it through the Heart" or "Chop it to Pieces". They should be collapsing entire temples with their strength, swordfighting while running across the tops of swaying bamboo, leaping up cliff faces or onto clouds.

That's the stuff of real heroics, not a trip attack.

 

[erleni]

I didn't mention adamantium. I said 'DC 17'.

Agreed, but it was necessary for the point of the conversation here...

Yes, that's what I thought too. I'm not happy about that being a valid answer given the situation the other characters are in. How might we fix that? 4E seems to suggest that everyone should get everything back over night, just like the cleric. I don't find that answer satisfying. I'm looking for alternatives.

Something we agree on. I'd suggest that it should take the rogue a lot less time to achieve this at high level than at low.

You seem to have missed the point of my post entirely. I want to know what you think should happen. I was not asking you to tell me what I think. I already know what I think.

The no items, captured scenario exists entirely to present a situation where a high level party might be faced with a DC 17 door in the first place. In fact, it basically exists because I knew someone was going to say "Fighters need to be more than magic item mules unless they can make their own magic items." Which you did.

I'm asking what the difference should be between low level play and high level play. What should a fighter be able to do differently (bearing in mind that we're talking about the person, not his equipment)?

If you believe the fighter should be able to plait steel bars, I want to understand why. Is it that you see all characters as 'beyond human' in a comic book super hero kind of way? Do you see fighters as somehow transcending their humanity to become godlike in some manner? Perhaps you feel that the close presence of magic (items and spellcasters) throughout their adventuring life has altered their DNA, giving them super-human abilities. I want to know, so that I can understand why you think an otherwise non-magical human fighter should be able to bend steel that easily.

Thank you for seeing what I was getting at.

The fundamental question here is 'what is a fighter?' But I'll focus on a different question first:
"What should a fighter be able to do?"
There really seems to be two sides to this argument; those who want the fighter to remain mortal, albeit highly trained, and those who want him to transcend the abilities of mortal man. I can easily accept wizards bending the rules of physics, because they're utilizing an imaginary force (magic) to do so. Yet, it has long been established that DND fighters do not utilize that force, so why should they be able to [for example] bend steel as if it were rope?

This is about the type of story being told as much as anything else.
One story remains a lot more consistent with reality as we know it - Steel is hard to bend. The other pushes ever further into the realms of the fantastic - where we invent adamantine, god-steel and other imaginary substances specifically to ensure that the world can provide a consistent level of challenge to these god-men.

Do we let logic dictate the mechanics, or do we come up with mechanics first, then make up a million fantastic clauses (or replacements for steel) to ensure that those mechanics make sense?
Do we let the story dictate the mechanics, or do we let the mechanics dictate the story?

From my side I think that fighters need to become super-humans. Otherwise how could they think about standing toe-to-toe with 9-meters-tall fire-breathing reptilians and kill them with a sword? I think that no real world master fencer would think about attacking an intelligent T-Rex armed with a giant flamethrower.

 

[billd91]

From my side I think that fighters need to become super-humans. Otherwise how could they think about standing toe-to-toe with 9-meters-tall fire-breathing reptilians and kill them with a sword? I think that no real world master fencer would think about attacking an intelligent T-Rex armed with a giant flamethrower.

But are they Daredevil, Punisher, Hawkeye, Green Arrow, Batman, Black Canary, and Captain America superhuman? Or are they Thor, Wonder Woman, and Superman superhuman?

Are they Jason, Hector, Ajax, Conan, and Odysseus heroes? Or Heracles and Achilles heroes?

In both groupings, I generally prefer the former for my martial characters. Capable - very capable - of doing things no normal human can do, but not over the top Trials of Heracles feats.

 

[erleni]

But are they Daredevil, Punisher, Hawkeye, Green Arrow, Batman, Black Canary, and Captain America superhuman? Or are they Thor, Wonder Woman, and Superman superhuman?

Are they Jason, Hector, Ajax, Conan, and Odysseus heroes? Or Heracles and Achilles heroes?

In both groupings, I generally prefer the former for my martial characters. Capable - very capable - of doing things no normal human can do, but not over the top Trials of Heracles feats.

I'm not really familiar with all the comic books supeheroes you mentioned, but looking at the other subset I feel that high level D&D fighters are more like Heracles or Achilles, while Conan is probably an high heroic/low paragon tier character to use a 4e-meter, as are Jason, Hector, Ajax and Conan. My high level fighter in 2e could easily dispatch a Dragon by himself so it's not only a 4e thing.
I think that if heroic tier wizards could resemble Gandalf, high level wizards should be more like Belgarath. At the same time Conan is a good example of heroic tier fighter, while Thomas (from the Riftwar Saga) or Kratos are good examples of high level fighters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The fighter, pre-4e, is pretty bland in combat. 4E opened up more options, but the fighter no longer occupied a unique space (everyone in 4e cast "spells", eg).

The trouble is that the fighter never occupied a unique space, and pre-4e only occupied a genuinely valuable one with Weapon specialisation. The edition to unite the editions is probably going to stick to that - I've said repeatedly if they'd gone for weapon spec it would have been a lot better than what we got.

in short, the problem with 5E fighters isn't the fighter, its the combat system they are supposed to "play" in.

Which is an attempt at the traditional D&D system.

I didn't mention adamantium. I said 'DC 17'.

OK, reanswering.

The Cleric is a D&Dism rather than an archetypal fantasy character. What I visualise the cleric doing is ... not being there.

For more fantasy archetypes:

Fighter:
Low level: Break the door down or smash the hinges, taking time to do it. High level: Find a weak point in the wall and break that in about two kicks. (Barbarian, likewise).

Thief: Low level: Pick the lock with the lockpick he hid from the searchers.
High level: Pick the lock with his thumbnail or just by tapping it.

Wizard: Low level: Mage hand to filch the keys or illusion to pretend he isn't in the cell.
High level: ___??? I'm not even going to try to guess - anything from animating the entire castle to teleporting home depending on their specialty. (An illusionist would do something like painting a door on the other wall and stepping through it while a telekenetic would rip the door off its hinges).

Bard:
Low level: Talk his way out of the cell and possibly the jailer into it or his way into the jailer's daughter's bed.
High level (unless the low level would be funnier - always a consideration with Bards): tap the lock, find its resonant frequency, and then sing to break it in the way an opera singer can with a wineglass.

Druid:
Low level: Over a few hours grow a small tree in the doorframe, bursting the door. Or summon help via talking to animals and get one to filch the guards keys.
High level: Flood the place in vines in seconds, bursting the doors and walls, summon help by talking to animals and getting an elephant (in Northern Europe), or turn into either a small animal and creep out or a big one and bust the door off its hinges.

Ninja:
Low level: Appear not to be there and then sneak out when someone comes to check.
High level: Walk through the wall.

Paladin:
Low level: Wait. Justice will sort itself out.
High level: Convert the jailer and have him start confessing his sins and asking for absolution.

Yes, that's what I thought too. I'm not happy about that being a valid answer given the situation the other characters are in. How might we fix that? 4E seems to suggest that everyone should get everything back over night, just like the cleric. I don't find that answer satisfying. I'm looking for alternatives.

I like a slight tweak to 4e. Everyone gets everything back together but only in a place of safety - a home city or base or fortified encampment. It's more than just sleeping for a night.

I'm asking what the difference should be between low level play and high level play. What should a fighter be able to do differently (bearing in mind that we're talking about the person, not his equipment)?

Hope the above helps.

If you believe the fighter should be able to plait steel bars, I want to understand why. Is it that you see all characters as 'beyond human' in a comic book super hero kind of way?

It's a mix of high level and the fighter archetype. The fighter I do not see as mundane. It's the person strong and tough enough to stand toe to toe with ridiculour enemies. And mortal strength and toughness has a limit.

If I want a mundane character, compensating for human frailty by his wits and skill, that is not a fighter. That's a thief (or possibly a ninja or bard). Justice League Batman isn't a fighter; he never goes toe to toe with anyone. Batman's closer to a rogue or assassin. The fighter on that team is Superman. (Plus a few others sometimes). In the Avengers movie, Thor's a fighter, so's the Hulk. Iron Man's gear dependent and is some sort of wizard. Black Widow and Hawkeye, the "ordinary" humans don't fight toe to toe. They don't fight the way a fighter does. They aren't fighters because a human fighter could not survive in that environment. Instead they are rogue-types using cover, stealth, mobility, and trickery.

Do you see fighters as somehow transcending their humanity to become godlike in some manner?

No. I see that to fight giants toe to toe rather than through stealth and trickery you need to transcend human frailty. I see that surviving dragon breath through toughness (rather than getting out of the way) you have to transcend human frailty.

To behave the way a fighter behaves against D&D foes you can not be an ordinary human. And you must know you are not - otherwise to go head to head with things is suicidal.

I want to know, so that I can understand why you think an otherwise non-magical human fighter should be able to bend steel that easily.

I don't. I see a non-magical high level human fighter would have become a corpse many levels back unless calling them non-magical was like calling Tony Stark an ordinary human and discounting his armour. Now if you want a non-magical human rogue, at high levels be my guest. A fast and lethal trickster who fights way above his supposed weight class by guileand cunning. And by never taking a direct hit from something that powerful. You just can't behave like a fighter against high level foes while being an ordinary human without being obliterated by colateral damage or casually flung into walls, picking up more concussions than a professional boxer.

 

[Greg K]

I don't want to see high level fighter = demigod. Hercules and Cuchulain were demigods and born with superhuman ability. Demigod should be a background and there should be a separate module for playing at that power level.

Fighters should be able to cool stuff like 4e, but I would prefer to see it handled in a Book of Iron Might approach instead of the 4e power system. Push, Pull, Knockdown, knockback, hinder movement, inflict penalty, inflict ability score damage, daze, stun, temporarily blind or deafen (e.g., inflict a cut above the eye, ear strike/clap), disable natural attack, disable certain supernatural abilities (e.g., beholder eyes),etc. This again is where we, , most likely, get into the difficulty of 5e unifying the fan base. BOIM uses to hit penalties that can be offset by taking one or more drawbacks (e.g., opening oneself to an AOA, the opponent gets a saving throw to avoid affect, attack does no damage (only inflicts the rider)). Many 4e players don't like penalties to hit to achieve effects. My self and the people that I know like the penalties to hit and ability to offset them. The ToB and 4e Martial powers are unacceptable to us.

The other thing I would want to see is the spellcasters depowered from pre-4e so that they are reduced in power to be on par with martial types.

 

[Imaro]

...
No. I see that to fight giants toe to toe rather than through stealth and trickery you need to transcend human frailty. I see that surviving dragon breath through toughness (rather than getting out of the way) you have to transcend human frailty.

To behave the way a fighter behaves against D&D foes you can not be an ordinary human. And you must know you are not - otherwise to go head to head with things is suicidal.

I don't. I see a non-magical high level human fighter would have become a corpse many levels back unless calling them non-magical was like calling Tony Stark an ordinary human and discounting his armour. Now if you want a non-magical human rogue, at high levels be my guest. A fast and lethal trickster who fights way above his supposed weight class by guileand cunning. And by never taking a direct hit from something that powerful. You just can't behave like a fighter against high level foes while being an ordinary human without being obliterated by colateral damage or casually flung into walls, picking up more concussions than a professional boxer.

I'm curious, how do magic weapons and armor fit into your views of the fighter? See IMO, what you are saying would be true... if the fighter was a normal human with normal gear fighting giants, dragons, etc. then yes he would die and die quickly... but he's not. I mean even looking at Achilles as an example... alot of his bad-assness is because he's magically invulnerable except for his heel (magic armor???). Take that away and one has to wonder exactly how great Achilles would have been.

 

[Umbran]

Are they Jason, Hector, Ajax, Conan, and Odysseus heroes? Or Heracles and Achilles heroes?

Well, if they are clever with their modularity, the system itself doesn't have to pick. You will get to pick which one works for your table.

A tall order, I know. But darned spiffy if it works.