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

[JamesonCourage]

Didn't say you said that. No need to get defensive.

Just pointing it out to others who might be reading.

That's true, but if you're replying to my statement, and then trying to counter a point that I didn't make, some people might call that a strawman.

Ironically, the fighter even gets shortchanged in your made-up example. He can only do 12 damage when everyone else can do 14...

I noticed that, too. Amusing mistake, if nothing else

 

[Fifth Element]

That's true, but if you're replying to my statement, and then trying to counter a point that I didn't make, some people might call that a strawman.

Or just expanding upon a point?

Seriously, I didn't mean it in any way against anything you said. When reading it, I just thought that it could be read that way (ie, as a misreading of SKyOdin's post), so I thought I'd clarify.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Or just expanding upon a point?

Seriously, I didn't mean it in any way against anything you said. When reading it, I just thought that it could be read that way (ie, as a misreading of SKyOdin's post), so I thought I'd clarify.

Okay, no offense taken. We've been getting along recently, I'd like to keep that up.

 

[Fifth Element]

Okay, no offense taken. We've been getting along recently, I'd like to keep that up.

Likewise. To be clear, I don't necessarily agree that all classes should "excel" at all three pillars, nor do I think there's no possible reason why they should not.

My personal preference is that all classes should have something meaningful to contribute to each pillar, at least much of the time. But as always, like what you like!

 

[JamesonCourage]

Likewise. To be clear, I don't necessarily agree that all classes should "excel" at all three pillars, nor do I think there's no possible reason why they should not.

Agreed.

My personal preference is that all classes should have something meaningful to contribute to each pillar, at least much of the time. But as always, like what you like!

Yep. Like I've said, I'd like the baseline to be 3/3/3, with optional rules on tweaking things to 4/3/1 or 5/1/1. And, personally, I'd probably rarely play a 3/3/3 character (same goes for my players), but I do think it's the better base assumption for the game. And, yes, play what you like

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Ron Edwards has made a similar observation in the context of RPG design more generally:

"Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time, or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone. Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so. In game terms, this is a Character Components issue: Hawkeye would have a high Metagame component whereas Thor would have a higher Effectiveness component.​

This is a significant reason why the Tier Analysis of classes may be right in some narrow academic sense, but it is very often unimportant at the actual gaming table.

Most Players want to have fun, not achieve some optimized rating based on someone's rubric found on a forum. So Fightery characters are attractive because they look like (and usually are) a fun package to be heroic with, even if it means dying while fighting the good fight.

 

[Zustiur]

I don't mind if the fighter gets to do more of what the fighter does. Perhaps that's the direction we should look in, rather than 'can split mountains' etc.
Some examples: At 11th level and above, the fighter gains 2d10 HP per level, rather than 1d10. He also gains bonuses to AC and Attack rating beyond what he already gains. He is able to inflict more damage by doubling weapon dice, or increasing the die size. When targeted by healing spells, he regains double the normal value.

All of these examples sit just fine with me, without necessarily needing a limiter - daily, encounter, what-have-you.
Applying these sorts of small, but more logical improvements, whilst simultaneously reigning in the wizards and clerics abilities would be acceptable to me.

However, my overall preference is still to leave the fighter more or less as-is, whilst focusing on altering spellcasters. I've mentioned in several threads that I'd like to see the wizard's 9 spell levels stretched out over 30 class levels rather than 20. I'm also happy to see his total number of spells available altered. Perhaps starting higher (coz 1-2 kinda sucks) but capping out much sooner. This is why I have also suggested a 'rolling pattern' where gaining say level 5 spell slots means you also lose level 1 spell slots. Throw that in with needing AD&D memorization time, and you have a fairly legitimate reason for memorizing lower powered spells in higher level slots when in the middle of an adventure.

Remembering the topic of this discussion, this helps to maintain the 'heavy wooden door' challenge as an actual challenge for a longer period of time. This will probably always be my preference over 'having to boost the fighter to handle more and more mythical doors'.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm rather surprised that you are ignorant of the NPC classes from 3E... Okay, explanation time.

In short, 3E had several classes designed specifically for minor NPCs that were by design weaker than the core PC classes. These were the warrior (a weak fighter with no bonus feats), the expert (nothing but skill ranks), the adept (spellcaster with a limited spell progression and small spell list), the aristocrat (a mix of various skills and weak fighting ability), and the commoner (terrible at everything). The DMG guidelines recommend using the warrior class for things like town guards, orc marauders, and so on. Similarly, most hedge wizards and minor potion makers were far more likely to be adepts, rather than actual wizards. While NPCs could have PC classes, those tended to be saved for more powerful or distinctive characters.

I knew about the commoner, aristocrat, etc. but didn't know about the warrior - I'd always assumed it was just being used as a colloquial term for fighter.

Err.. We create them out of thin air if needed. D&D is a game. One where only a minor handful of characters are generally stated out or described. Generally speaking, only the tiniest fraction of a setting is even defined, based on what is needed for the campaign. So there is plenty of room to simply invent characters when a replacement PC is needed. You don't need to make big assumptions about what is going on elsewhere in a campaign to make that possible.

I think you do, if for no other reason than internal game consistency.

Also, in my games I tend to run several different PC parties concurrently in the same game world, occasionally interacting either directly with each other or with what each other has done. So there's already more than one group of adventurers out there...

That is not my preference, or has been the basis for any campaign I have played in. I prefer camapigns with over-arching plot lines and heroes for protagonists to the amoral "kill monsters and take their stuff" campaigns.

Guess that means you're not into "kill other party members and take their stuff" campaigns either, huh?

I don't mind over-arching plot lines etc., but as a player I don't want to have to play a "hero" character just to make the plot work. I'm sometimes quite happy just to kill and take stuff in the here and now, and let the bigger-picture plot either sort itself out or just go away.

Superman is a hero. He's also dull as dirt and would have next to no entertainment value as a PC in an adventuring party. I play the game to entertain, and to be entertained in return...to me, this is about 98% of the whole point of the exercise...and characters whose morals tend somewhat south of Good and somewhat east of Lawful are almost without exception more entertaining than Superman types.

In any case, I would rather have my teeth pulled than have to stat up every random NPC with PC mechanics again. If I want to use an NPC, I'll only give them the most basic stats they will need. If the PCs need to fight something, I'll use monster rules. As I said earlier in the thread, D&D's mechanics are just a means of arbitrating player actions, not some kind of physics for the game world. Something only needs stats if there is a compelling reason to give it stats.

Your last sentence is quite true, but if it does need stats then for consistency it needs to use the same framework as the PCs if it's a PC race. The PCs themselves might only have used parts of this framework before their adventuring careers began (before I became an adventurer I did 2 years in the militia) but it's still there.

A dragon can still fly, a troll still regenerate, and a titan still stand, run and jump, inside an anti-magic field.

By RAW, maybe.

I've long had it that a magic-based creature (and this includes pretty much any "fantastic" non-mundane being) cut off from magic for too long will suffer, and eventually die. An Elf, for example, who somehow found herself on a completely non-magic world would immediately notice it as something similar to (but less obviously explainable than) being short of oxygen due to being at too high an altitude; and would die within the hour. A Giant, not as connected to magic, might last a few months or more. A Dragon? The phrase "gone in sixty seconds" leaps to mind...

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

This is a significant reason why the Tier Analysis of classes may be right in some narrow academic sense, but it is very often unimportant at the actual gaming table.

Most Players want to have fun, not achieve some optimized rating based on someone's rubric found on a forum. So Fightery characters are attractive because they look like (and usually are) a fun package to be heroic with, even if it means dying while fighting the good fight.

This is true. But is making the fighter more viable (from the perspective of those who do push the mechanics a bit harder) going to make things harder for those who approach things in a more light-hearted way?

 

[Underman]

A dragon can still fly, a troll still regenerate, and a titan still stand, run and jump, inside an anti-magic field. Why wouldn't a fighter be the same?

Who are you asking? Your question is addressed to me, but it was Neonchameleon who suggested the ambient magic theory. If you're asking me, I agree with you but IIRC it was he suggested that anti-magic should kill the dragon dead.

I've long had it that a magic-based creature (and this includes pretty much any "fantastic" non-mundane being) cut off from magic for too long will suffer, and eventually die.

I love this idea.

To analyze my own mental state, I guess what I like about it is that it tries to honor some level of consistency/cohesion in pseudo-natural laws, and so helps with suspension of disbelief, which many people seemingly don't care about, but I do. It's certaintly not necessary to playing D&D but it makes for far more richly textured, compelling campaigns IMO.

The Draconomicon is not an examle of traditional fantasy, precisely because it pretends to be scientific.

Doesn't matter, it's official WoTC, so it's RAW and real D&D, and in fact more relevant or more true to D&D canon than real-life myths as inspiration.

I've read some of the lengths that game designers go to explain adventure module background stories with elaborate (often overly contrived) rationalizations for how and why some villian accomplished so-and-so, which is the complete opposite of mythic and more pseudo-logical, matching the Draconomicon more in tone than most real-life myths.

Tradtional fantasy is Beowulf or Tolkien or Little Red Riding Hood (confining myself to NW Europe). None of these feels the need to explain how wolves talk or dragon's breath fire. These things don't stand in need of explanation. That's what makes it fantasy and not science fiction.

Nothing fictional needs an explanation in an absolute sense. It's want people want to have explained to some extent. You can't deny there are various elements in fantasy that various authors attempt to explain or justify in various ways, and many elements in D&D that designers and players attempt to justify. Explain nothing or try anything with no explicit or intuitive suspension of disbelief and your fantasy story crosses over to the absurd and/or surreal. So given that, what exactly what are you arguing please, because I don't understand our disconnect.