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

[JamesonCourage]

A mighty warrior-king who can chop hills in half has less problematic story influence than a wizard who can make magic items.

I disagree with this generalization. However, chopping mountains in half is incredibly important to the story (or would be, in my style of game). Creating something like a potion? Not as much. Now, creating a cube that can take you to six different planes and back? Starting to get there, again.

And, for the record, the fighter-types in my RPG are plenty capable of doing cool things (at least my players think so). And creating permanent magic items drains Charisma (the prime attribute for all casters). As always, play what you like

 

[Fifth Element]

I disagree with this generalization.

Indeed, however it was a poor example. The bar for "mythic" is somewhere below chopping a mountain in half.

 

[CleverNickName]

Really, D&D has slowly drifted away from "Medieval world + magic" to "Magical world, with medieval tech." It would do well to go back and regain some of that feel.

I wish I could give you XP for this. Yes, a thousand times.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've got an idea. Hear me out.

Let's go with a structure of magic and power scaling to 3E, perhaps knocking off some of the worst saving throw scaling thanks to Next flatter numbers. Also, take advantage of the Next reported intention to have individual spell power scale by the slot it is cast from, rather than the level of the caster. Then add in a spell called "counter magic," which can work in any spell slot. Actually, add one version of the spell for each major group, "counter arcane," "counter divine," etc.

Set counter magic spells up so that they make it possible for a spell to have some weak effects through one, but not very efficient. When, for example, a wizards casts a counter arcane spell on his party, their saving throws go through the roof, and they get things like 3E evasion even on missed saves. Maybe they also get advantage on any saving throw versus SoD effects. So when the effect is up, it's hard to hurt a party with that kind of magic, and same for monsters.

Next, set up monster organizations so that about 75% of monsters either have counter magic casters of their own, or some supernatural/special abilities that work similarly. You could tie things like the beholders anti-magic in here.

Finally, the cherry on top, the wizard gets a several times per day ability analogous to turn undead, but for unravelling opposing counter-magic. Some of the more arcane monsters also have this ability, as does any monster arcane caster. Meanwhile, turn undead for the cleric can also be used to unravel divine counter magic. Or even better, instead of per day, make this a part of a skill, such as arcana.

There. Now the effective wizard can dedicate a big chunk of his spells to counter magic. Or he can get the party fried all those times they encounter arcane magic and he doesn't have the answer. It might take 1-3 spells per encounter plus an Unravel Magic use to keep the enemy wizards in their place. Meanwhile, the fighters and rogues on each side are going to town, trying to take out enemy spell casters when they can, to tip the balance.

I'm sure some people will complain that this uses up to much of the wizard's actions and spell slots, but I don't see what the big deal is. It's fine for the cleric to spend his spells healing. It's fine for the fighter to spend his hit points holding things off. What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Don't tell me this wizard isn't twisting reality. All the wizards are twisting reality all the time, but the smart ones are spending some time trying to twist it back into something better for their side.

Maybe at really high levels the wizard will reach a point where he can shut down the opposition more easily. About the same time that clerics aren't heal bots, and fighters aren't bags of hit points.

 

[Ettin]

I did not say fighters = wizards. I said the martial powersource as presented in 4E is basically fighter magic. I'm playing a 4E fighter. There is nothing wrong with it, its not badwrongfun. It is less "magical" than the other defender classes but fighter dalies and encounter powers still feel like fighter magic to me.

Sorry, your post still feels like "fighters = wizards" to me.

 

[billd91]

I've got an idea. Hear me out.

Let's go with a structure of magic and power scaling to 3E, perhaps knocking off some of the worst saving throw scaling thanks to Next flatter numbers. Also, take advantage of the Next reported intention to have individual spell power scale by the slot it is cast from, rather than the level of the caster. Then add in a spell called "counter magic," which can work in any spell slot. Actually, add one version of the spell for each major group, "counter arcane," "counter divine," etc.

<snip>

I have seen worse proposals. I can certainly get behind bumping up saves relative to spell DCs and blunting the heights of those DCs. That would be a worthwhile change in the next version of PF, for example.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Indeed, however it was a poor example. The bar for "mythic" is somewhere below chopping a mountain in half.

That's true. Some people here do want the ability to cut mountains in half; personally, I don't want casters or Fighters doing that. That sort of myth-inspired gameplay just misses what makes fantasy interesting to me (it would be fine in a Mutants and Masterminds game, for example). While it's personal preference, advocating for "Fighters need to cut mountains in half" won't appeal to me; saying that it makes less of a story difference than making magic items is just well beyond what I can handle as valid (at least, with my style of play).

I'm open to mythic things; I had a Fighter-type guy as a PC in my RPG that could grapple a gargantuan-sized dragon with about 50/50 success at higher hit die (and it was higher hit die than he was). Like I said, I've had PCs climb 100 foot tall ice creatures to get to a weak spot, jump onto the back of dragons or wind elementals, etc. While I can handle a lot, cutting mountains in half is too far for me.

Everyone has a line somewhere, I suppose. The trick is finding the line that people will accept. I think that by bringing casters down from what they were in 3.X is a great start. I also think they should be worse at combat (even with their big spells) than the warrior is. And worse at stealth (even with their big spells) than the rogue. And worse at social situations (even with their big spells) than the bard. But that's just my take on it; I'm not sure what'll work for everyone else. As always, play what you like

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's true. Some people here do want the ability to cut mountains in half; personally, I don't want casters or Fighters doing that.

And I'm in camp 3. The camp which says that if fighters are to be able to play at all at epic level they need to be able to cut mountains in half. I don't want to DM epic tier and I don't really want to play it. But some people like gonzo games - and I don't see why they shouldn't be accomodated at high levels.

 

[JamesonCourage]

And I'm in camp 3. The camp which says that if fighters are to be able to play at all at epic level they need to be able to cut mountains in half. I don't want to DM epic tier and I don't really want to play it. But some people like gonzo games - and I don't see why they shouldn't be accomodated at high levels.

I think we can both agree that there are varying degrees of epic play that can be had. Sure, maybe have a list of "mythic" feats available at epic play only, and include things like mountain cutting; that way, a group can opt into epic play (by playing at levels 21+), and opt into epic abilities, and lastly opt into "mythic" feats (if that's the kind of epic they want). As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I'd be somewhat open to a system where the fighter (and to a lesser extent other warrior classes) could gain in power through equipment OR substitutes for it OR a mix of same.

<snip>

What you need to make this work is some kind of rationale and system where the warriors get access to this replacement stuff, while other characters mainly don't

I've thought that the BECMI/RC optional weapon mastery rules have a lot to contribute to this discussion--especially the way that higher mastery does not merely add plusses, but unlocks special abilities. It's possible that an extension of the weapon proficiency idea in 4E could be blended with that to produce something interesting.

<snip>

Then steal an idea from Draqon Quest, and make "simple" weapons cap out on proficiency sooner.

<snip>

Magic weapons extend these limits, so that excess proficiency is hard to waste.

I think your proficiency idea is a good way to solve at least some of your "confining it to fighters" problem.

the class should give the Fighter the ability to use weapons better than anyone else, and the Fighter should be able to be an interesting and powerful class even in a game that doesn't use magic items. A Fighter shouldn't need magic items in order to fight dragons, since they should be able to get by just fine with ordinary gear.

I've got some sympathy for this view, and it might be necessary to make Dark Sun and the like viable. But maybe it has to be put to the side for the moment if a 5e-viable core fighter is to be conceived of.

To the extent that magic equipment is the equalizer for the fighter, it has to be a lot like the Hero System "focus" rules versus the "independent" rules.

<snip>

in this conception, a high level fighter doesn't have the ability "able to use great magic swords". He can do that already just having sword proficiency. What he does have is the ability to "call/find/receive/discover Excalibur and mostly hang onto it through the trials that follow."

That kind of game isn't for everyone, but if you aren't comfortable with that distinction, then you also aren't actually comfortable with magic equipment being the equalizer for warriors, and need to reconcile that somehow.

enough people had significant problems with "Your fighter can, [X] per [day, combat, etc.], do something martially flashy" that I believe that "Your fighter can, [X] per [day, combat, etc.], create or change a magic weapon" will face significant resistance.

What CJ says here strike me as obviously correct, but I think Patryn is right about the difficulties of selling it. In edition to the points that Patryn makes, there are the frequently-stated objections to wishlists, to magic items being necessary at all, etc. Plus the objections to the pre-release suggestion that, in 4e, only high level characters could benefit from magic rings.

These aren't arguments against the idea of balancing fighters by reference to their ability to deploy magical gear to the max. (And I'm the first to point out that a lot of this stuff seems based on a degree of confusion or self-deception - for example, we can infer that AD&D PCs were intended to be item-decorated Christmas trees from the fact that it is a burden, on a paladin PC, to be able to own only 10 magical items.)

But these concerns are reasons to think very hard about how any idea along these lines is framed and sold in the rulebooks.

I've got an idea. Hear me out.

I read it - but surely this design outline (I almost wrote "madness" but thought that might be too harsh) is just to make a point?!