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

[Mallus]

According to that sense of things, a mythic fighter is more akin to a monster or divine than a normal person or adventurer.

From my perspective, a person who can shake off a 100' fall or an enormous magical fireball right to the face is, de facto, something out of myth.

Come to think of it, the most sensible way to rationalize the D&D power curve is to treat all PCs as if they're proto-demigods, every one of them a little Achilles or Herakles in training.

Doing this neatly explains why they can attain class levels while virtually everyone else can't -- at least under AD&D/2e. I realize 3e introduces the possibility of Shoalin Soccer-style high-level NPC classes, and such amusing constructs as the uber-waitress who's tougher than your average grizzled veteran sergeant --a real Eberror NPC, BTW.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Specuation:

- Perhaps fighters getting more access to Themes/Feats/a secondary Advanced Theme would open up the design space to narrow their scope to the more mundane Martial Weaponmaster, Defender, Soldier, Slayer (etc) as the character evolves...or to broaden it with two Advanced Themes for Mythic, Heroes of Legends, Beowulfian, etc type capabilities if this is the archetype you seek. Other classes wouldn't have access to this design space if only fighters get more Themes/Feats/a secondary Advanced Theme.

This of course presupposes that they get the power levels, capabilities and feel correct and that this archetype's availability in the core does not offend some gamers' sensibilities...which may be a bridge too far.

Yes, I've been saying "two different classes, one mundane and one mythic" in the latter part of this topic, because it is way to skip the direct implementation and discuss the ideas and needs behind it. Earlier, Imaro, Underman, and I were discussing other methods.

If someone had a wide list of fighter archetypes they wanted to do, we'd probably find that a combination of class, theme, individual feats, "paragon paths," etc. will be the way to go. There will be a lot of overlap between the various shades of archetypes, and we don't want a class for every last one of them.

What's the difference between sets of "mundane" and "mythic" themes geared towards warrior types ... versus sets of "mundane" and "mythic" class ability picks tied to a fighter class? For solving most of the playstyle issues discussed here, not a dime's worth of difference. You still need to get the flavor right for the theme or ability. You still need to label it appropriately so that people know where it fits. The practical differences in those two implementations are more about how all of this interacts with other classes, multiclassing, etc.

I don't care how it's done, as long as it's done such that if I want to run a more down to earth campaign, a player can readily have a character that fits the archetype and fits in with the rest of the party, and then the same if I run a more wahoo campaign. I don't care what you call it, where you put it, or exactly how it's implemented. Just make it work close to launch.

 

[Manbearcat]

If someone had a wide list of fighter archetypes they wanted to do, we'd probably find that a combination of class, theme, individual feats, "paragon paths," etc. will be the way to go. There will be a lot of overlap between the various shades of archetypes, and we don't want a class for every last one of them.

What's the difference between sets of "mundane" and "mythic" themes geared towards warrior types ... versus sets of "mundane" and "mythic" class ability picks tied to a fighter class? For solving most of the playstyle issues discussed here, not a dime's worth of difference. You still need to get the flavor right for the theme or ability. You still need to label it appropriately so that people know where it fits. The practical differences in those two implementations are more about how all of this interacts with other classes, multiclassing, etc.

I don't care how it's done, as long as it's done such that if I want to run a more down to earth campaign, a player can readily have a character that fits the archetype and fits in with the rest of the party, and then the same if I run a more wahoo campaign. I don't care what you call it, where you put it, or exactly how it's implemented. Just make it work close to launch.

Agree completely with all three paragraphs 100%. I'd XP you if could but I have to spread it around.

 

[WarlockLord]

Why do some people consider 10th level fighters to be "mundane", ie normal people?

Mind you, I'm not criticizing anyone's play style preferences. I'm asking from a lit crit./close reading perspective.

In the edition I started with --and thus, the a priori category through which I view all things D&D-- a 10th fighter level has an average of 62 HP. Add in some CON bonus and we're up to around 80 HP. Their saving throws are equally impressive; a 50% or better in every category (without any magical items).

This is a person who can take the maximum damage from either a 100' fall off of a cliff or a fireball cast by 10th level magic-user (level title - Necromancer!) and still come at you with a sword. If they took average damage from those unfortunate events, they could likely survive two of them in rapid succession.

This qualifies as 'mundane'?

Again, I'm not criticizes preferences, I'm merely trying to give the text an accurate reading. To my mind, the implication has always been that leveling in D&D invariably means approaching demigod status. Regardless of how it's addressed in the fiction.

The only way to prevent this is to not reach higher levels.

Because that's not really anything supernatural. It's something we might expect of an action movie protagonist - he dodges the evil magic, he uses his weapon, evil necromancer dead.

Sure, it might seem effective, but when the necromancer decides "screw this, I'm just going to fly up, cast wind wall, and throw rocks at the fighter till he dies," the fighter needs an overhaul. What's even worse is that monsters -in 3.X are usually put on the same power level as wizards. Sometimes even moreso (such as the CR 7 cloaker lord that casts as a wizard 9).

What people aren't addressing in this thread is how a mundane fighter is supposed to deal with, say, an illithid. He can't really outsmart the thing: illithids have a base 19 -superhuman- intelligence, and intelligence is normally a tertiary stat for a warrior. The illithid can simply levitate up and throw mind blasts or compulsion attacks at the fighter all day, and if it feels threatened at all it can plane shift out. Sure, the fighter can use a bow, but he's probably not built for that as much as melee and his primary shtick is off the table. And a wizard would be far more useful here - they could put up protection from evil, shut down the mind attacks, and have effective spells despite the illithid's SR.

Off topic slightly, could someone enlighten me as to why we're treating meteor swarm as the ultimate attack spell? It's a joke at the level you get it - said wizard is far better using gate or shapechange.

 

[Mallus]

Because that's not really anything supernatural. It's something we might expect of an action movie protagonist - he dodges the evil magic, he uses his weapon, evil necromancer dead.

Two points:

1) In my example, the 10th level fighter does not dodge the evil magic. He fails his save and stands dead-center in a blast of magic fire --which is capable of melting steel-- taking maximum damage.

Without so much as falling down unconscious.

2) Action movie protagonists set the bar for realism rather low (about six feet underground, I'd say). And shrugging off the 100' fall/big-ass explosion moves the protagonist from John McClane territory into Wolverines', donctcha think?

 

[Underman]

From my perspective, a person who can shake off a 100' fall or an enormous magical fireball right to the face is, de facto, something out of myth.

The question is whether that's cherry-picking or is that the status quo for most adventures? I think it's cherry picking, like a stupid plothole or two in a movie doesn't make the entire movie silly, just the one scene.

 

[Underman]

2) Action movie protagonists set the bar for realism rather low (about six feet underground, I'd say).

That's OK, people still watch those movies all the time and tolerate it, D&D is usually not an exception.

And shrugging off the 100' fall/big-ass explosion moves the protagonist from John McClane territory into Wolverines', donctcha think?

On this point, I really, really, really like the idea (I don't remember whose it was, Herreman I think???) that hit points are a privilege (not a given) and throwing yourself off a 100' cliff, just because you can according to the RAW, would negate that privilege. Kinda like being exceptionally lucky in life, and then dying abruptly when you decide to get off the destiny track by foolishly testing exactly how lucky you are.

 

[Mallus]

The question is whether that's cherry-picking or is that the status quo for most adventures? I think it's cherry picking, like a stupid plothole or two in a movie doesn't make the entire movie silly, just the one scene.

I think what I described is the inevitable consequence of a fighter gaining levels (and rolling average for their hit points).

I find this defines what a higher level fighter is, ie a mythic figure.

Other people might assign a different weight to this intrinsic characteristic of D&D fighters. All I can say is this is the best reading of the text I can come up with. I'm open to other interpretations.

I have to ask: how does pointing out the ability to endure superhuman amounts of punishment --an ability common to all higher level fighter classes which also a common occurrence for said class members-- amount to cherry-picking?

It's half of what those classes do, for Crom's sake.

 

[Minigiant]

The question is whether that's cherry-picking or is that the status quo for most adventures? I think it's cherry picking, like a stupid plothole or two in a movie doesn't make the entire movie silly, just the one scene.

Well Meals did say in the fighter design goal article, the fighter could take a few wizard spells to the face and clobber-charge the squishy if the moron stays in range.

The fighter hurricane-swords the spells away or flutters the fall slower with HP. Sure if the group wants to change and add rules, fine.

But the default 10th+ level fighters are closer to Marvel Asgardians like Thor and Loki.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why do some people consider 10th level fighters to be "mundane", ie normal people?

Mind you, I'm not criticizing anyone's play style preferences. I'm asking from a lit crit./close reading perspective.

In the edition I started with --and thus, the a priori category through which I view all things D&D-- a 10th fighter level has an average of 62 HP. Add in some CON bonus and we're up to around 80 HP. Their saving throws are equally impressive; a 50% or better in every category (without any magical items).

This is a person who can take the maximum damage from either a 100' fall off of a cliff or a fireball cast by 10th level magic-user (level title - Necromancer!) and still come at you with a sword. If they took average damage from those unfortunate events, they could likely survive two of them in rapid succession.

This qualifies as 'mundane'?

Again, I'm not criticizes preferences, I'm merely trying to give the text an accurate reading. To my mind, the implication has always been that leveling in D&D invariably means approaching demigod status. Regardless of how it's addressed in the fiction.

The only way to prevent this is to not reach higher levels.

10 is a neat number. That's all for me. 4E had the Heroic Tier ending at level 10.

In 3E, I'd probably peg it ending at around level 5-8. Level 9 is definitely not "heroic" anymore to me, thanks to the kind of spells available at that point (Teleport for long-distance travel). I hadn't really thought about using hit points as test parameter, and mostly I think falling rules are just badly designed in general and that's it.