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

[Imaro]

Maybe the Fighter needs Paragon Pathes that explain where he gets his "mythic" powers. I would like people to have different options, since a single one won't cut it.

• Artifact Master: The Fighter unlocks supernatural abilities from a magic item.
• Martial Magic: The Fighter discovers scrolls explaining fighting techniques that blend magic and martial arts.
• Bath in Dragonblood: Bathing in the blood of a dragon he killed himself, the Fighter acquires unique magical gifts, gaining him parts of a dragon's fighting prowess.
• Divine Blood: The fighter discovered his divine heritage and taps into it.
• Divine Champion: Devoting his life to a god (or the gods), the Fighter gains supernatural powers.
• Fey Warrior: Elves or Gnomes unlock their fey abilities and use them to augment their combat abilities.
• Primal Warrior: The Fighter lets nature's power flow through him.
• Dark Pact: The Fighter enters a pact with a demon, devil or mage to gain supernatural powers.

My question, and I'm not claiming there is or isn't a "right" answer is... would these different "paragon paths" have a mechanical effect?? Or are they just window dressing for a single classes mechanics?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It would be actually quite easy to do, if done right. All you need is another warrior (and perhaps rogue) class ala Book of 9 Swords. Compare the fighter to the warblade for example. The latter is clearly the near mythic hero some people want, while the 3e fighter falls much into the mundane realm others want. It can't be THAT hard to put such a class as a reworked warblade into a supplement book again? Assuming they can work out the balance (unlike in 3e) problems, a mythic warrior becomes nothing more than a monk of a different stripe; calling on some force to do things more wondrous than the normal man can. Its a simple, and daresay, modular way to appease both camps, even at the same table.

Side Note: There are some people who will comment about class bloat. To you I have to say "tough". I see no problem with creating a class of warriors with supernatural abilities and making them separate from normal fighters. Barbarians and monks already fall into this realm, and you can easily argue paladins and rangers do too. What's one more to the pile?

There's really only two things wrong with that idea as written: Putting the reworked warblade in a supplement, and making him nothing but a "monk of a different stripe."

If they want to keep the 4E audience, and this is the route chosen, then they'd better put the "mythic fighter" class and the "regular fighter" class in game from the get go. That will show that they are options, meant to be swapped. It will also mean that the mythic version has a better chance of not being a shoddy kludge. Plus, I see no problem with "class bloat" in this sense, since they must fill the pages with something. It can't be any worse than magic item bloat, spell bloat, feat bloat, or power bloat.

As for the "monk of a different stripe" bit, I'm not sure that I want to get into the extended discussion of why that's off--but if that's their best idea of the class, then they need to think again.

Getting away from a response to your suggestion in particular, which I otherwise rather like ... as for the handful of people that are tee'd off that something appropriately mythic made it into the basic rules instead of getting shunned off in it's little abberant niche--WotC needs to tell them to take a short jump off a high cliff. They are poison to the community anyway.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My question, and I'm not claiming there is or isn't a "right" answer is... would these different "paragon paths" have a mechanical effect?? Or are they just window dressing for a single classes mechanics?

Why not some of each? When the paths are very similar mechanically, combine them, and provide several different flavor options. When the flavor causes the path to diverge mechanically enough, split 'em out.

This is another one of those extremes that D&D keeps pursuing to its detriment--find a single way to do everything and do that, even if you must cram a bunch of jumping jacks into a deflated balloon to make it "work".

 

[Manbearcat]

Getting away from a response to your suggestion in particular, which I otherwise rather like ... as for the handful of people that are tee'd off that something appropriately mythic made it into the basic rules instead of getting shunned off in it's little abberant niche--WotC needs to tell them to take a short jump off a high cliff. They are poison to the community anyway.

This is where things are terribly difficult for WotC. At this point, they are attempting to represent some kind of Populist position whereby every sub-culture of DnD is the begrieved, little guy and they'll have their due (the ability to play their preferred game through modding, or outright playing, the base system). Unfortunately, every single "DnD union" that WotC is representing maintains a position of disenfranchisement to one degree or another that is directly in conflict with the other "DnD union(s)." Worse yet, there are some that have an odd, xenophobic fervor to their ire such that they have a considerable number of non-starters directly related to tertiary elements of other unions' playstyles being reasonably represented in the new ruleset (mostly in the core rules but sometimes even so far as to not want aspects of their playstyle to even be available via modules for fear of it tainting the mainstream - your quote above). You used the word poison. I agree with that assessment.

Placating the middle and the radicals (who knows what percentage they are?) who don't want to even have their eyes cast upon something like a "mythic warrior" (even if it can be 100 % absent from their game)...again, a neat trick. There are only two ways forward; Big tent whereby they produce a base core and mod it...or support each edition as a separate entity. Given the polarization of the player base, they've clearly chosen the more difficult route (either for political expedience or economics...who knows). I truly hope that the player base becomes less polarized as this playtest continues. It looked very ugly several weeks ago. But, as of late, I've noticed a few more internet handshakes, slaps on the backs, and begrudging agreements. So I guess maybe there is hope.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It would be actually quite easy to do, if done right. All you need is another warrior (and perhaps rogue) class ala Book of 9 Swords. Compare the fighter to the warblade for example. The latter is clearly the near mythic hero some people want, while the 3e fighter falls much into the mundane realm others want. It can't be THAT hard to put such a class as a reworked warblade into a supplement book again? Assuming they can work out the balance (unlike in 3e) problems, a mythic warrior becomes nothing more than a monk of a different stripe; calling on some force to do things more wondrous than the normal man can. Its a simple, and daresay, modular way to appease both camps, even at the same table.

Side Note: There are some people who will comment about class bloat. To you I have to say "tough". I see no problem with creating a class of warriors with supernatural abilities and making them separate from normal fighters. Barbarians and monks already fall into this realm, and you can easily argue paladins and rangers do too. What's one more to the pile?

But wait, how can the balance problem work out if you want a non-mythical Fighter that is underpowered since he's mundane and cannot do the amazing feats other, magical classes can do?

It may still be a fix - delete fighter in your campaign and use the Bo9S instead, but it cannot be balanced - the Warblades or whatever will be more powerful, wouldn't it?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My question, and I'm not claiming there is or isn't a "right" answer is... would these different "paragon paths" have a mechanical effect?? Or are they just window dressing for a single classes mechanics?

They would - I thought that was kinda the requirement, otherwise we don't need the paths, we could just say "by the way, fighters get supernatural at level 11 - how so? Figure it out yourself". Though I'm inclined to also provide a more generic path for exactly that.

The artifact master may even get powers based on the type of artifact - say, he uses a "fiery" sword, he gets fire powers (which are outright magical and not just subtle). He may throw fireballs, burst into flames, ignore heat and cold. A guy with a magical belt may instead gain giant-like strength and incredibly forceful melee attacks - and he may be able to jump mountains.
The Dragon Blood Bath guy would probably get a lot of toughness related stuff.
Someone that learns sword magic may be very subtle, mostly stuff that looks like regular sword moves, except with more force or precision than to be expected.

There are a lot of options and it would be difficult to cover them all. I figure the core rules may have only a small selection.

 

[Remathilis]

There's really only two things wrong with that idea as written: Putting the reworked warblade in a supplement, and making him nothing but a "monk of a different stripe."

If they want to keep the 4E audience, and this is the route chosen, then they'd better put the "mythic fighter" class and the "regular fighter" class in game from the get go. That will show that they are options, meant to be swapped. It will also mean that the mythic version has a better chance of not being a shoddy kludge. Plus, I see no problem with "class bloat" in this sense, since they must fill the pages with something. It can't be any worse than magic item bloat, spell bloat, feat bloat, or power bloat.

As for the "monk of a different stripe" bit, I'm not sure that I want to get into the extended discussion of why that's off--but if that's their best idea of the class, then they need to think again.

Getting away from a response to your suggestion in particular, which I otherwise rather like ... as for the handful of people that are tee'd off that something appropriately mythic made it into the basic rules instead of getting shunned off in it's little abberant niche--WotC needs to tell them to take a short jump off a high cliff. They are poison to the community anyway.

First off, since when has the word "Supplement" become a taboo word? You can't fit EVERYTHING in the dang core book. If WotC went to put every option, module, and sub-class into the PHB, the thing would be the size of a good encyclopedia set. The PHB needs the basics; a mountain-chopping warrior sounds right up there with a gish or an artificer in "niche" classes.

Second, Monk of a Different Stripe just means a warrior with supernatural abilities. Swap out a monks martial arts bent for traditional armor and weapons and turn his abilities more toward Western myth than Eastern mysticism.

I'm not sure how to respond to your poison quote. Are you saying that those who want mythic fighters are poison or those who refuse to allow it are? I don't believe either is the case, but if you think not chopping mountains in half is a poison to the game, I can honestly say this conversation is over.

 

[Remathilis]

But wait, how can the balance problem work out if you want a non-mythical Fighter that is underpowered since he's mundane and cannot do the amazing feats other, magical classes can do?

It may still be a fix - delete fighter in your campaign and use the Bo9S instead, but it cannot be balanced - the Warblades or whatever will be more powerful, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. A mundane fighter can still excel at gaining extra actions, having keen senses, dealing amazing damage, and other abilities that a peek human might have. He's not leveling mountains and leaping oceans; a warblade might have those abilities at the expense or raw damage or leadership abilities.

Different but equal; isn't that what 4e preached?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

First off, since when has the word "Supplement" become a taboo word? You can't fit EVERYTHING in the dang core book. If WotC went to put every option, module, and sub-class into the PHB, the thing would be the size of a good encyclopedia set. The PHB needs the basics; a mountain-chopping warrior sounds right up there with a gish or an artificer in "niche" classes.

Second, Monk of a Different Stripe just means a warrior with supernatural abilities. Swap out a monks martial arts bent for traditional armor and weapons and turn his abilities more toward Western myth than Eastern mysticism.

I'm not sure how to respond to your poison quote. Are you saying that those who want mythic fighters are poison or those who refuse to allow it are? I don't believe either is the case, but if you think not chopping mountains in half is a poison to the game, I can honestly say this conversation is over.

I don't care about the mountain chopping itself. It can be more restrained than that. But there are those that have said it is "unacceptable" to have a fighter with even a touch of "mythic" characteristics, even in a supplement. Those are the people that are spewing poison, because they are basically trying to dictate the scope of the game to their narrow preferences. (That's why I went to some trouble to point out that I was no longer responding directly to your quote in that paragraph, but to a side issue.)

There are some good arguments to be made for not having particular elements on other grounds, but as these aforementioned people haven't made the slightest effort to make those arguments, I'm only mentioning it for completeness--and to note that that isn't a case of going after exclusion by itself that is the problem, but the reasons behind that exclusion.

No, you can't have every option in the main book. You can have a good cross-section. That means that from the beginning, you need the various playstyles represented. If that means that each style is not complete, so be it. No playstyle should be a second-class citizen. That's my beef with, "stick it in a supplement." To often here it has been couched in terms of "stick it out of the way where it won't bother the rest of us."

And in any case, I'm not buying the "having trouble fitting it in the book" argument from WotC. (I would have from early TSR.) They have been designing systems that require bloat, sometimes so that they can fill out the page count. Hey, I'm merely trying to suggest how they can fill page count without it being filler material.

That said, I actually care more about the timing than the organization of the books. If, for example, they wanted to produce a "mythic" supplement right along the main playtest and development, and then release it as a different books, I'd have no problem with that. I want the effort made to do it right, and make early while it can still do some good. Not kludged onto the game after the core has already gotten locked into place and can't be tweaked a bit to make it work.

 

[billd91]

Getting away from a response to your suggestion in particular, which I otherwise rather like ... as for the handful of people that are tee'd off that something appropriately mythic made it into the basic rules instead of getting shunned off in it's little abberant niche--WotC needs to tell them to take a short jump off a high cliff. They are poison to the community anyway.

If this attitude prevailed, the community would have no one left.