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

[Fifth Element]

Nor does anyone have the courage and willpower to do one specific task exactly once per day, but retain the courage and willpower to do other equally impressive tasks that same day.

So what about a wizard who memorizes two "copies" of the same spell? He casts the spell, and yet the magical memory wiper does not remove his ability to cast that spell again, because he still has one memorized.

 

[Imaro]

Honestly, I'm amazed you are actually making the claim that the desire of fans is, in of itself, not enough to warrant change to D&D. You are saying that D&D's traditions are more important than the desires of the fanbase, otherwise arguing that the tastes and preferences of older fans are more important than the tastes and preferences of newer fans or perhaps arguing that D&D is somehow above criticism and that, despite having clear flaws for decades, it is better to preserve those flaws for tradition's sake rather than fix them and create a better game. No matter what the reasoning is, I won't accept it.

How are you even speaking to the desires of the fans or the fanbase??? Just looking at the threads about 5e easily shows there is no one desire of the fanbase... I'm also not arguing that older fans are more important than new fans... but I don't see why the opposite, which you seem to be arguing for, is any more valid? As to it's flaws, again that depends on who you ask. 4e was specifically designed to fix many of those so-called flaws and yet we saw a large portion of the fanbase reject it and stick with their "flawed" games.

If tradition is more important than actually making the game appeal to a greater number of fans, then D&D won't grow and expand and make people it happier. Instead, it will share the fate of the fans who want to preserve that tradition: death of old age. It will slowly fade into irrelevancy. Games new to grow, change, and adapt to the tastes of new fans if they want to survive. D&D is no different. If it fails to change and grow, then I see little reason to continue to financially support it. If 5E fails to even build upon 4E's progress on the very subject we're talking about, then I most certainly will never purchase it. I imagine many others will do the same. I wouldn't even mourn D&D's death if it chooses such a path.

How do you know your desires will appeal to a greater number of fans? Or that new fans don't enjoy some of those old traditions and tropes? This is just full of unsupported assumptions. Again 4e tried to change and adapt to the tastes of new fans... but something didn't click with alot of people. See I think what you're missing is that most new gamers are introduced by the older gamers you are claiming are irrelevant... and if a game isn't to their liking then they aren't going to play it or introduce it to new people. As to 4e's "progress" well some/many found it not to their liking so I think it's better to analyze why it faioled with alot of people before deciding it's the way to go.

Also, I really don't get at all what your Elric vs. Heracles discussion is all about. You don't even bother explaining why Elric would win... Not that I really care, since I've never read the Elric stories and absolutely do not care to. The idea of a drug-addled angsty anti-hero who kills everything he cares for with a soul-sucking sword doesn't really appeal to me, to be honest (and given that I like many crazy videogame plots, that's saying something). Is this some argument that only "Appendix N" books are allowed to be inspiration for D&D or something? If so, that's simply absurd.

Perhaps you should follow the discussion if you wish to comment or take part in it...

Anyways, if you think I have been asking for specifically mythological inspiration, you're mistaken. As I believe someone else has stated, the kind of genuinely powerful fighter we are asking for is a trope of pretty much all of fantasy outside of D&D's own tiny little world. This includes myth, folktales, classical literature, historical pop culture, fantasy precursors like John Carter of Mars, modern fantasy works, anime, and videogames. Saying that D&D shouldn't emulate any of those is asking it to not emulate an awful lot of things... Especially given the fact that various 3E supplements and the entire Fourth Edition have already made good strides to accommodate such things. Arguing against imporessive Fighters isn't an argument for tradition, it's an argument for a reactionary redefinition of tradition that aims to bring regression rather than progress.

I haven't addressed what you asked for specifically, but within this thread there are those who want a "mythological" fighter.

OAN: Would you please go back and actually read my posts on this subject. I can tell you have no idea what my stance is and yet have tried to engage me in an argument I'm not supporting. I've agreed early on that fighters should get more power and versatility, the only thing I've been discussing is what the source and fiction around the how and why of that should be. Not sure what you're arguing though.

 

[Underman]

Perhaps "leaping the ocean" willpower and courage is different from "cleaving the mountain" willpower and courage.

How do you figure that? I cannot reconcile that in any way, personally.

So what about a wizard who memorizes two "copies" of the same spell? He casts the spell, and yet the magical memory wiper does not remove his ability to cast that spell again, because he still has one memorized.

I don't get the problem. The spell memorization ritual has imprinted two sets of spell runes in his mind's eye; it doesn't know or care if the runes are similiar or the same.

None of this matters anyway. You're going after the magic system from an objective point of view. I'm looking at the magic system subjectively from the mage's POV, the guy I'd have to roleplay.

Do you think its fair that you throw all these esoteric details at me about the magic system, while keeping the courage-and-will system extremely vague and iffy? Why not apply your own analytical skills to your own fighter system to make it more robust and plausible to the rest of us

 

[Fifth Element]

D&D doesn't do this. D&D magic works on the principle of: "don't think too hard about it." Since all supernatural powers in D&D already fall under the purview of "don't think too hard about it", why can't we apply that logic to martial stuff as well?

Concise. I fear that D&D magic only "makes sense" due to familiarity rather than some internal logic.

 

[Imaro]

So what about a wizard who memorizes two "copies" of the same spell? He casts the spell, and yet the magical memory wiper does not remove his ability to cast that spell again, because he still has one memorized.

He can only remember so much (which is established by the mechanics and in-game explanation) in the way of discrete spells, so that part of his memory that another spell would have occupied is being devoted to continuing to remember that spell one more time once he casts it... before it's wiped clean.

 

[MarkB]

Nor does anyone have the courage and willpower to do one specific task exactly once per day, but retain the courage and willpower to do other equally impressive tasks that same day.

A fair point - I do tend to prefer points-based systems for this sort of 'limit break' concept rather than specific powers. But a person might easily have only the capacity for one or two super-heroic acts of daring/strength/stamina in them during the course of an active day.

 

[Fifth Element]

Do you think its fair that you throw all these esoteric details at me about the magic system, while keeping the courage-and-will system extremely vague and iffy? Why not apply your own analytical skills to your own fighter system to make it more robust and plausible to the rest of us

No, I think the courage-and-willpower system being very vague is absolutely fine, that's the whole point. I'm actually pointing out that the "details" of the magic system are themselves very vague and don't make a lot of sense if you start picking at the details. And, as such, expecting the fighter "system" to stand up to such scrutiny is a double standard.

 

[Imaro]

Why not apply your own analytical skills to your own fighter system to make it more robust and plausible to the rest of us

This... I have no problem with more versatile and more powerful fighters... but this is where I think 4e fell down for many.

 

[Underman]

A fair point - I do tend to prefer points-based systems for this sort of 'limit break' concept rather than specific powers. But a person might easily have only the capacity for one or two super-heroic acts of daring/strength/stamina in them during the course of an active day.

I don't have a problem with points-based system; it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the 1 x day exploits.

If a person has the "capacity for one or two super-heroic acts of daring/strength/stamina in them during the course of an active day", then let the fighter leap 500 ft 1 x day and super cleave 1 x day or leap 2 x day or super cleave 2 x day.

 

[Fifth Element]

He can only remember so much (which is established by the mechanics and in-game explanation) in the way of discrete spells, so that part of his memory that another spell would have occupied is being devoted to continuing to remember that spell one more time once he casts it... before it's wiped clean.

But this is not how human memory works. Which is absolutely fine, so long as we don't then say something like "Nor does anyone have the courage and willpower to do one specific task exactly once per day, but retain the courage and willpower to do other equally impressive tasks that same day."

Real-world understanding of courage and willpower is being applied to the fighter, but real-world understanding of memory is not being applied to wizards. The rift remains.