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

[Umbran]

Bringing this back around, the case for the wizard being special as a caster of arcane magic is not the case for the wizard being somehow special compared to other D&D characters as a whole.

Yes. Any such statement that boils down to, "Someone at your table has to accept getting the short end of the stick," is probably a non-starter. You are playing a game. Everyone needs to get enjoyment out of it. That generally means everyone must get spotlight, "Hey, look I'm cool!" time.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Would it help if we made the "fighter" kind of a cross between a regular class and a 3E NPC class, and kept him strictly mundane? Maybe capped his effective power around 10th levell--even if he could technically keep gaining levels after that which branched out his skill set but didn't really change his mundane nature?

Then we have another class, call it a "warrior," that goes from low-powered but appropriately capable guy to mythic warrior over the course of his levels?

I'll give up the name "fighter" in the nasty custody battle if I can get a "warrior" as alimony.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'll give up the name "fighter" in the nasty custody battle if I can get a "warrior" as alimony.

Good trade! "Fighter" is right up there with "magic user" in terms of evocative class names.

 

[Mallus]

Anyways, the PCs are by their very nature special. They are the PCs! The main protagonists! They are the heroes! By their very nature, they defy the conventional limits of normal people to perform exemplary and incredible feats.

Right on!

All PCs can be though of as sharing Power Source: Protagonism. It lets them do all sorts of wondrous things. For starters, it allows them to become to ascend to demigod-like status by killing things and taking their stuff. This doesn't work for normal people. When they try it, they usually 'ascend' to jail or an early grave.

I'm starting to think the best way to conceptualize all this is to bury the notion any D&D class is mundane past a certain level, regardless of whether their hat preference runs toward the pointy (or the miter, or a crown of mistletoe). I'd say 6th or 7th level is a good demarcating line.

I have no problem with high-level fighters flinging mountains or wrestling rivers into a new course. D&D has always trumpeted it's roots in myth and folklore. So it should put its electrum pieces were it's mouth is. Sure, we could introduce Girdles of Mountain-Flinging and Gauntlets of River-Wrestling into the game. Then we'd have an explanation! Everything would be so logical! Whee!

But is that really necessary? Does every epic in-game act require some form of BS materialist/rationalist justification?

Hercules wasn't decked out in a Christmas tree's worth of appropriate magic items when he performed his Labors. Why should a high-level fighter PC. His buddy in the conical hat can make pocket universes.

edit: an example, using Doors (and the 4e concept of Tiers, cause it's handy)

Heroic Tier: a PC fighter has a chance to batter down a heavy door (they are a tough normal person)

Paragon Tier: a PC fighter has a chance to batter down the Door to Moria (they are no longer so normal, more folkloric)

Epic Tier: a PC fighter has a chance to batter down the Gates of Hell (epic, like it says on the tin).

 

[TwinBahamut]

Would it help if we made the "fighter" kind of a cross between a regular class and a 3E NPC class, and kept him strictly mundane? Maybe capped his effective power around 10th levell--even if he could technically keep gaining levels after that which branched out his skill set but didn't really change his mundane nature?

Then we have another class, call it a "warrior," that goes from low-powered but appropriately capable guy to mythic warrior over the course of his levels?

I'll give up the name "fighter" in the nasty custody battle if I can get a "warrior" as alimony.

I'm not sure if I'd want a "warrior", since that was the weaker-than-fighter NPC class in 3E, and we have enough "war-" classes anyways.

Of course, I've been arguing in various threads since these boards were created that they should just dismantle the Fighter into 3 or more other classes that have a bit more of a real concept behind them. Fighter has always been a bit too generic for me. Of course, the Wizard could probably use the same treatment...

 

[Underman]

Would it help if we made the "fighter" kind of a cross between a regular class and a 3E NPC class, and kept him strictly mundane? Maybe capped his effective power around 10th levell--even if he could technically keep gaining levels after that which branched out his skill set but didn't really change his mundane nature?

Then we have another class, call it a "warrior," that goes from low-powered but appropriately capable guy to mythic warrior over the course of his levels

If retaining traditional fantasy or action movie elements, still need a "weapon master" fighter/warrior who is basically like a prodigy at combat at high levels, when they fight it is a thing of beauty that brings tears to your eyes. Their level is reflected as expertise in weapons and mastery of combat; it's a very common trope.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Lots of great points made in this thread.

Fundamentally magic lacks any coherent vision. No vision of what it is good or bad at. No vision of professional specialization should look like, because to be a real wizard is to specialized in doing absolutely every well, apparently.

In mythology and fantasy literature we see clear specialists approximately always. Enchanters. Illusionists. Shapeshifters. Weapons forgers. Potion makers. Diviners.

The 1e Illusionist pointed the way, but, frankly, both 2e and 3e chickened out. 2e made a stupid kind of specialization, then shuffled the best 1e Illusionist tricks into the Generalists' already overstuffed bag. 3e built itself on the 2e model but, in theory, could have accomplished something interesting here with PrCs; unfortunately 3e only rarely mustered anything more exciting than "+1 caster level to some spells".

The 3.5 Psionics pointed to a reasonable compromise -- a general pool of good stuff, but the best powers were restricted to the specialists in that area. Plus, Psionics is more clearly less good in more areas, compared to arcane and divine casters.

I think that the 3.5 Psionics model is probably our best hope for 5e.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

More seriously, it wouldn't be a bad use of sub classes or simiilar categories to handle the differences, and then put them in every class. At some point, you choose to go down the "mundane/restricted" path, the "sword & sorcery" path, or the "mythic" path. These might not branch until mid level or so--maybe even "name" level.

Don't make any attempt to balance these across paths, but do across classes. That is, a "mythic" fighter or wizard of a given level is pretty much capable of cleaning house with any lesser fighter or wizard of the same level, but are roughly balanced to each other.

Then if you want, in a particular campaign, to have some classes more restricted on paths than other classes, that's great! You are making that choice, and are presumably quite happy to handle the consequences or side effects (good, bad, or ugly).

I don't think the "sword and sorcery" wizard is getting meteor swarm or wish, and I know the "restricted" wizard is going to have some serious limits.

 

[Imaro]

Obviously, it's a combination of preparation and the physical/mental ability to do it.

I might as well ask why other people can't memorize spells. It's just reading a book, right? Fighters have memories, too.

Because they can't... Read Magic...

 

[Mallus]

At some point, you choose to go down the "mundane/restricted" path, the "sword & sorcery" path, or the "mythic" path.

I see these as simple level ranges/caps.