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

[Manbearcat]

I beg to differ. This situation (a truly open playtest where the players have a significant hand in shaping the R & D and then polishing the final product) is unprecedented so the effect of being rigid, unyielding, uncompromising and exclusionary and someone subsequently calling an unyielding, uncompromising, exclusionary attitude "poison" is in its genesis. Maybe in 30 years (if our hobby lasts it, the owners of DnD continue an open playtest, and the sides remain polarized) will you know if your hypothesis is true.

Nonetheless, I'm fairly sure you're indicting the existence of the egg that sprang forth from the chicken without extending the same courtesy to the chicken that birthed it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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

Some message boards would get hit quite hard. The larger community of D&D would be just fine.

 

[Lanefan]

... 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.

Poison? Or an antidote; to the insidious poison of power creep in the game and quasi-magical wahoo for non-magical classes?

Hyperbolic, yes; but your definition puts me in the "poison" category (I think fighters in 5e core need to be bog simple "hit it till it's dead" characters that anyone can pick up and play in a heartbeat) and that does tee me off.

No other class can really fill that simple entry-level role. Also, I'd like there to be at least one class (but preferably, all of them) where I as player don't have to remember powers or look at skill lists etc. - I can just role-play the character as entertainingly as I can, roll some dice when I have to, and let the DM tell me what happens.

All the other gype can and should be added as modules; as for all kinds of reasons it is easier to add to a core system than subtract from it.

Lan-"save vs. poison at -3"-efan

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Poison? Or an antidote; to the insidious poison of power creep in the game and quasi-magical wahoo for non-magical classes?

Hyperbolic, yes; but your definition puts me in the "poison" category (I think fighters in 5e core need to be bog simple "hit it till it's dead" characters that anyone can pick up and play in a heartbeat) and that does tee me off.

No other class can really fill that simple entry-level role. Also, I'd like there to be at least one class (but preferably, all of them) where I as player don't have to remember powers or look at skill lists etc. - I can just role-play the character as entertainingly as I can, roll some dice when I have to, and let the DM tell me what happens.

All the other gype can and should be added as modules; as for all kinds of reasons it is easier to add to a core system than subtract from it.

Wait, you guys are apparently reading more into this than what I said. In the context of what I was replying to, where we discussing having a fighter that is just like you want and a more mythic "fighter" (probably with some other class label). The disagreement was about whether this belonged in the core or in a supplement, and a mentioned as an aside that some people did not want it in the rules at all. It is this last group that is poison.

It is not only not poison to want a "mundane" fighter, it's perfectly reasonable. "I want to be able to play the game such that the fighters don't do anything remotely wahoo," is a playstyle like any other, and deserves to be catered to.

Now, if someone say something like, "I can't run a game with "mundane" fighters because this other "mythic fighter" class over there is so appealing, it circumvents my authority--so it needs to be left out so that I can run my game," then they need to take a deep breath and think a second time. Basically, that is a claim for playstyle preference to supersede others' playstyle preferences, because the speaker can't grow a backbone. But even that's not poison.

If someone says, essentially, "Don't waste any time catering to these other preferences (i.e. not mine), because they don't really matter anyway. You can put the B-team developers on a supplement, in a few years, as long as you don't waste too many resources on it or infect the main system with it..." then that deserves no consideration whatsoever.

Also, I reject the notion that it is always easier to add than to take away. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. The various kludges that have been D&D supplements since it started pretty much show the full range.

 

[Lanefan]

Wait, you guys are apparently reading more into this than what I said. In the context of what I was replying to, where we discussing having a fighter that is just like you want and a more mythic "fighter" (probably with some other class label).

I have to ask - and I can't quite believe I'm about to type this - how can you possibly balance those in the same game? I don't think you can, thus either one has to accept imbalance in the game or one of those classes has to go.

Also, I reject the notion that it is always easier to add than to take away. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. The various kludges that have been D&D supplements since it started pretty much show the full range.

Yes, but I suspect a lot of the poorer add-ons to earlier editions were just that: add-ons, dreamed up long after the original core was released and thus less likely to work with the design of said core. This in fact goes all the way back to 1e - the original UA was a collection of various post-design add-ons; some were good, some were awful.

Here with 5e they have a chance - realistically, for the first time ever - to design the whole lot all at once and simply release it in stages. And the first release should be the core nuts-and-bolts framework with everything stripped to the bone. For some, that'll be all the game they need. Others might wait for some add-ons (I suspect once 5e releases we'll be up to our ears in supplements within the first year, it won't be a long wait) and go from there. To us as consumers they'll all look like add-ons, but in fact they're all part of the core design.

The challenge for all involved (WotC, 3rd-party, even kitbashing DMs) will be to resist the temptation to try adding other things later that aren't part of the overall core (including all modules) design.

Lanefan

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I have to ask - and I can't quite believe I'm about to type this - how can you possibly balance those in the same game? I don't think you can, thus either one has to accept imbalance in the game or one of those classes has to go.

You can't balance it, and shouldn't even try. Balance only matters for things intended to be used together. A "mythic" fighter and a "mundane" fighter aren't intended to be used together. (Or more precisely, if you decide to use them together because it fits some niche thing you are doing, or because maybe one guy wants the challenge of a mundane class in a mythic setting--then the balance issues are all on you. That's no different than if you decide to mix, say, 1st level PCs with 10th level PCs. It's outside the tolerance levels of the design.)

And that brings up the next major objection that has to be addressed, and why it needs to be this way: How do you communicate to the player community at large, and then within groups, what things work together? Label those suckers!

For example, you should be able to say something like, "If it says 'wahoo' or 'mythic' on it, you can't play it in my game unless you get express permission--and don't hold your breathe waiting."

This is where the diversity moves from a weakness or neutral thing to a real strength. Because having to satisfy multiple playstyles is difficult. But trying to shoehorn multiple playstyles into a single element is really hard. And to be fair, I think this is part of the visceral reaction that Next is producing--something like: "Hey, they are gonna slip some of that wahoo stuff in the fighter class to try to please those other guys, which is probably going to just botch the class for me--and not even be enough to make them happy anyway."

And that's absolutely true if they try to mush it altogether to make it roughly balanced. One guy likes cabbage and another guy likes pecan vanilla ice cream. Just put cabbage in with the pecans in the ice cream, and it will make everyone happy? Oh no, some people only want one or the other. OK, I know. We'll put both in a big box in unmarked containers so that you have to open each one and try it to see what it is! It will need to go into the freezer section, but what could go wrong?

This point goes double for feats, spells, etc. Classes will presumably be a short enough list that you can determine pretty fast which ones you want to pay attention to and which ones you don't. The main benefit to the labels in the classes is that if they bother to label, say, the fighter "mundane" and the warrior "mythic," then you can pretty much bet that the fighter really is mundane.

Yes, but I suspect a lot of the poorer add-ons to earlier editions were just that: add-ons, dreamed up long after the original core was released and thus less likely to work with the design of said core. This in fact goes all the way back to 1e - the original UA was a collection of various post-design add-ons; some were good, some were awful.

Here with 5e they have a chance - realistically, for the first time ever - to design the whole lot all at once and simply release it in stages. And the first release should be the core nuts-and-bolts framework with everything stripped to the bone. For some, that'll be all the game they need. Others might wait for some add-ons (I suspect once 5e releases we'll be up to our ears in supplements within the first year, it won't be a long wait) and go from there. To us as consumers they'll all look like add-ons, but in fact they're all part of the core design.

Like I said earlier, I'm fine with a variety of packages and presentation techniques, as long as key modules are designed and tested early--before the core becomes set in stone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have to ask - and I can't quite believe I'm about to type this - how can you possibly balance those in the same game? I don't think you can, thus either one has to accept imbalance in the game or one of those classes has to go.

If balance doesn't matter when comparing the fighter to casters, why would it matter when comparing the fighter to some hypothetical 'mythic' fighter?

 

[TwinBahamut]

I have to ask - and I can't quite believe I'm about to type this - how can you possibly balance those in the same game? I don't think you can, thus either one has to accept imbalance in the game or one of those classes has to go.

Yes, but I suspect a lot of the poorer add-ons to earlier editions were just that: add-ons, dreamed up long after the original core was released and thus less likely to work with the design of said core. This in fact goes all the way back to 1e - the original UA was a collection of various post-design add-ons; some were good, some were awful.

You know, later 3E stuff was a lot better balanced than early 3E stuff, by a pretty huge margin. Both the weakest 3E classes and the strongest 3E classes are almost entirely found in the PHB. The fighter and monk were incredibly weak and the full casters were incredibly strong. Later classes like the Warblade, Duskblade, Warlock, and Binder were much, much better balanced against each other. The issue of supplements vs. core is almost irrelevant to the discussion. If WotC has quality control issues, then the game will be imbalanced whether it is core or supplement, but if they don't have those issues than balance will be better.

On the the other subject...

Certainly, it is hard to balance a proper "mythic fighter" against the "mundane fighter". This is mostly because it is close to impossible to balance the mundane fighter at all, if you define it as being the no-class features beatstick seen in 3E and the 5E playtest. It has been gravely weaker than casters many times, so much so that it simply isn't in the same league as them. If you accept that as a natural part of the class, then all you need to do is make this clear, and make a mythic fighter that actually is on par with casters, or perhaps in a middle ground where mythic fighters can work alongside more limited casters in a middle tier between mundane fighters and broken-strong full casters. It would be a return to 3E's eccentricity, but as long as it is actually intentional it may be more playable.

More to my preference, they would find some way to make the mundane fighter just as strong, but with very different ability sets and such, so that all classes could be equally balanced. This would probably require something unusual like my "play three fighters at once" recommendation from earlier, but it might still be possible. Proper balance would be preferable to tiered quasi-balance, after all.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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?

I am not convinced that extra actions will be sufficient, and currently the Fighter doesn't look like he'll have keen senses either (no Perception, no Wisdom requirements).

The playtest fighter had 3 extra actions per day. How does that compare to the spells the Wizard had? How will this scale up? Remember, higher level spells are more powerful than lower level ones.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Nothing wrong with any of this, but where does Beowulf fit in? Or Lancelot (who remains tough, even after his fall)? Or Gawaine?

Professional athletes in the real world exhibit all manner of dexterity, agility, speed, coordination, and strength that vastly exceeds that of the common man.

<snip>

Perhaps then, its not so strange that through extraordinary martial conditioning, will, genetic predisposition, there is an even higher level of access to energy/kinesis and/or the ability to bypass or overcome drag, inertia, gravity, friction in a fantasy world where some form of arcane conduit permeates the atmosphere or space/time (whatever it is), divine beings grant miracles and non-supernatural, gigantic creatures can fly from a standstill without the requisite thrust or forward momentum necessary to create and sustain lift despite their absurd weight and their inefficient forms creating greater form/frictional drag.

<snip>

Its fiction first and they are not attempting to model reality. They are attempting to model heroes of legend and the stories that comprise their legacy and all other considerations are secondary. And by secondary I mean non-existent.

There they are, in either the second or third of Manbearcat's three alternative approaches.

That's what I want to see for a mythic fighter. (But I'm happy to see Mustrum's other stuff as well! It's all good.)

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.

This isn't what I want to see. . .

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."

. . . for the reasons that CJ has gone on to elaborate.