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

[Imaro]

1. By studying and learning how.

2. Some arbitrary limit placed by the game system, such as a number of times per day.

3. Because they haven't learned how.

Just like the wizard.

See and to me these are the important questions. You can say the fighter should be able to cut a mountain in half, but until we define the method, limitations, etc. How do I judge whether he should or shouldn't be able to?

 

[Imaro]

"Can cast spells" is not a limitation. Can cast spells is an excuse to be able to do anything. "Can cast illusion spells" is a meaningful limitation.

Can you steal a spellbook? Are you guaranteed to know a particular spell? Do you need components for certain spells? These are all limitations created by the "how" part of wizards doing what they do.

 

[Fifth Element]

See and to me these are the important questions. You can say the fighter should be able to cut a mountain in half, but until we define the method, limitations, etc. How do I judge whether he should or shouldn't be able to?

Obviously anything a character can do in the game world has to be framed in the mechanics of the game. That's never been an issue. Of course anything has to be defined in game terms, otherwise it can't happen in-game.

But the response of "it's magic" to why the wizard can do stuff is countered by "it's mythic" for the fighter. Similarly "wizards have spells" = "fighters have exploits."

This is why it's seen as a double standard that wizards should be able to do anything you can imagine while fighters should only be poking things with sharpened bits of metal.

Absolutely define these mythic fighter exploits in game terms.

 

[billd91]

Here's the thing, though - in real world myth, legend, and practice, magic is generally bounded. Each magical tradition has rules. It has strengths and weaknesses. It has mechanics that limit its functioning.

We, in the gaming community, tend to take "magic" to equate to "can to *anything*". But traditionally in human cultures, that's not the case. Magic can give you access to abilities non-magicians don't have, but there are still limits on what the magician can do. And, generally speaking, there's a price to be paid - typically a price that the magician cannot simply get around by using magic.

We, in the gaming community, perhaps should instead think in terms of "magic can do anything, in general, but any particular magician will be in some way bounded." You get something far more flavorful this way.

We actually already do this but on a case by case basis. The spells defined in the rules provide that structure of limitation for a wizard. They do so a bit differently for a druid, a bard, a cleric, a ranger, a paladin, and so on. They do so differently for a beholder and a dragon.

Magic is unbounded in the sense that we can create exceptions in any number of ways. But it's bounded in the sense that good design of the lore of the character (and the rules) encourages us to have each exception have its own nature and boundaries. If someone were to argue that those boundaries became too blurred in 3e, particularly with the expansion of spells in the splat books, I would generally agree. I would like to see more unique character to the spell lists.

That said, 3e and earlier editions do impose costs on gaining spellcasting power (bad hp, bad attack bonus, bad AC, interruptability, rarer magic items, etc), but they tended to weaken in 3e (and I'm sympathetic to the claim it did so too much) - probably because too many restrictions were considered "unfun" or too cumbersome. 4e's take on the situation is a bit different in that it gives other classes access to the unbounded magical pool (ritual casting) though it still inherently gives the spellcasting classes a leg up in that department. It also ditches most of those previous factors that imposed costs on wizards across the board (everyone with same attack bonus, same structure for determining effect). Its main solution is to heavily bound the most commonly used magic itself to a structure in both damage and effect shared with martial characters. I think that has proven as controversial as 3e weakening wizard (and other caster) limitations because it creates a D&D whose magic isn't quite as "magical" as it once was and, I think, contributes to 4e not being as widely adopted.

 

[Imaro]

Absolutely define these mythic fighter exploits in game terms.

Well I haven't been arguing about the source, I've been talking about implementation which is what I feel was the problem for many with 4e. Not that fighters got tactical moves and "exploits" but how the game implemented them and presented them... including their in-game rationales.

 

[Lanefan]

Holding one class to a higher standard of 'proof' or 'plausibility' than another is exactly the double standards being expressed in this thread.

OK, there's a double standard - casters justify one way, non-casters another.

I for one am cool with this, and ask why don't we just accept there's a double standard and move on.

I don't really want fighters having loads of wahoo powers - a fighter is there to beat things into the ground; as they advance in level they get better at it. They have to rely on other people for the magic stuff.

One thing I haven't seen brought up yet: the Thief. It can often do all kinds of things that are a bit beyond what reality would allow, but it's pretty easy to justify as they're simply good at what they do. Magic never enters the picture. But for some reason nobody complains about how they work.

Lanefan

 

[Neonchameleon]

But it's bounded in the sense that good design of the lore of the character (and the rules) encourages us to have each exception have its own nature and boundaries. If someone were to argue that those boundaries became too blurred in 3e, particularly with the expansion of spells in the splat books, I would generally agree.

I'd argue that the boundaries were too blurred in 1e - and only got worse.

And defining things the way you do there is fundamentally bad meta-design. The reason this is the case is that for it to work, every single person who designs a spell in that system must then be a good designer or they either break the incredibly softly defined bounds or end up with a waste of a spell.

Design that relies on everyone in future doing things right is bad design.

I don't really want fighters having loads of wahoo powers - a fighter is there to beat things into the ground; as they advance in level they get better at it. They have to rely on other people for the magic stuff.

One thing I haven't seen brought up yet: the Thief. It can often do all kinds of things that are a bit beyond what reality would allow, but it's pretty easy to justify as they're simply good at what they do. Magic never enters the picture. But for some reason nobody complains about how they work.

The thief has two words: Plausible Deniability. And being plausible is part of a thief's job description. Fighters aren't subtle.

But the fighter needs the wahoo powers I'm proposing in order to beat actual threats into the ground. Because as things stand, even in 1e, the serious threats cast spells. And the fighter needs to be able to deal with that. D&D spells are so wahoo that either you level cap everyone (which Gygax effectively did at 9th/10th by giving them castles or towers) or you end up with the fighter being useless on his own merits (which Gygax admitted was a problem).

 

[Nagol]

OK, there's a double standard - casters justify one way, non-casters another.

I for one am cool with this, and ask why don't we just accept there's a double standard and move on.

I don't really want fighters having loads of wahoo powers - a fighter is there to beat things into the ground; as they advance in level they get better at it. They have to rely on other people for the magic stuff.

One thing I haven't seen brought up yet: the Thief. It can often do all kinds of things that are a bit beyond what reality would allow, but it's pretty easy to justify as they're simply good at what they do. Magic never enters the picture. But for some reason nobody complains about how they work.

Lanefan

I think that's partly to do with my posts 'way back in 70's:

The reasons fighter begin to feel dependent (not useless) is all the out-of-combat abilities especailly the divinatory, travel, and environmental survival capabilities the spellcasters develop. If the fighter want to travel 50 miles underground to the lost dwarvern citry, they can eithr (a) convince the spellcasters to take them in a minute or (b) prep for a week-long expedition, gear up for N wandering monster combats, and hope nothing develops to turn them around in the next week or so.

and

Fighters typically lack identifying/locating a threat, getting to said threat, and surviving the environment surrounding said threat more than anything else. This becomes problematic as levels rise as those challenges typically become more esoteric to take a group's abilites into account -- rather than tracking a kidnapper through the woods overnight ending in confrontation, the group divines the whereabout of the vanished villain, then plane shifts and greater teleports to confront the villain standing on his bronze ship floating on the elemental plane of fire.

The Thief/Rogue typically has more abilities to identify/locate a target (via social skills and knowledge) and getting to a target (via stealth and skills to penetrate barriers). In addition, the Thief/Rogue hsa traditionally had better means to exercise magical aid though using magical devices than the fighter-types which further helps to remove the feeling of dependence those PCs feel towards the rest of the party..

 

[Remathilis]

One thing I haven't seen brought up yet: the Thief. It can often do all kinds of things that are a bit beyond what reality would allow, but it's pretty easy to justify as they're simply good at what they do. Magic never enters the picture. But for some reason nobody complains about how they work.

Lanefan

Because everything a thief can do can be done with a 1st or 2nd level spell with 100% success?

Compared to that, a thief's chance of failure more than makes up for whatever wazoo he can do. A thief's "magic" isn't all that magical when a wizard's magic is 100% effective.

 

[Umbran]

Magic is unbounded in the sense that we can create exceptions in any number of ways.

Well, that's the case for any fiction, really. The fighter is not bounded because we cannot create an exception. The fighter is bounded merely because we choose not to do so. It is adherence to genre that keeps us from this.

In genre, "magic" typically has some pretty strict limitations as well. So long as we are saying, "we can enact any kind of exception" we are not subjecting the wizard to the same adherence to genre as the fighter. And therein lies the basic conflict.

Double standards are a pain in the neck.

Thus, we come down to the basic point - the various classes should be similarly restricted - if you're holding fighters to genre, you should hold spellcasters as well. If you want really unbounded spellcasters, you really ought to loosen the reins on the non-magic ones. It is the mixed state that causes balance problems.