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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

See and to me these are the important questions. You can say the fighter should be able to cut a mountain in half, but until we define the method, limitations, etc. How do I judge whether he should or shouldn't be able to?

I cannot try, as hard as I want, to memorize a spell another time after I expended my spell slots, until I've taken a rest. The next morning, my mind is empty of spells and I can prepare the spell, possibly more than once (at the expense of others)

I cannot, as hard as I try, focus my anger and strength enough to cut a mountain again a second time, until I've taken a rest. Next day, it just works.

No matter how hard I try, after working 8 hours straight on a difficult code problem, my productivity sink, until I've taken a rest. The next morning, I suddenly have an idea, a new angle, and can get on it again.


Or, one could even forget the whole "daily" conundrum the D&D mechanics force on us- they are just a shorthand for certain "recovery techniques" that must be applied. Maybe I don't actually need to sleep over the code problem. Maybe watching 8 episodes of DS9 could also work to refresh my code analyzing part of my mind.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

OK, there's a double standard - casters justify one way, non-casters another.

I for one am cool with this, and ask why don't we just accept there's a double standard and move on.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having the double standard, even actively going after it, if that's the kind of game you want. Ars Magica is pretty much built around that very conceit.

There is something completely off with, "why don't we just accept ... and move on," unless you are willing to make an argument that the double standard is fundamentally necessary to the functioning of not only particular playstyles but the core of the game itself. I'm not saying that such an argument can't be made--only that no has.


To be really useful, technically there should be at least three different conversations, and we should generally not allow points that pertain to one to cross over into the other:

• The nature of the double standard, if it exists, how strong is it, where are its boundaries, etc.
• Assuming for the sake of argument that it exists and some people don't like it, how to work around it.
• Assuming for the sake of argument that it exists but that's all fine and dandy by itself, but what we can do to make this more acceptable to people?
• And, I guess, assuming for the sake of argument that it doesn't exist, but what causes people to think it does. Though I think there is little here that won't get hashed out in the first discussion, unless there was some big other thing responsible that could then be dealt with.

A "double standard" isn't really a double standard once you openly acknowledge its underlying nature and want to shift the ground to its effects and possible ways of dealing with it. At that point, it's more like a "known inequality." It's not a "double standard" that NFL quarterbacks have special rules to protect them, for example, however right or wrong-headed those rules may be in particular. It would be a double standard for someone to insist that current NFL football rules contain no such special rules.

 

[Underman]

So the rulebook can say this:
Once a day a fighter can, through force of will and courage, leap 500ft.
Once a day a mage can cast 'the spell' fireball.

I know why the mage can cast a fireball spell once per day, he has the spell recipe for it, he forgets the recipe after casting, and needs a full rest to restore it. The mage may not understand why this works, he just know that it does. That's an external process, what the mage thinks about the process is irrelevant.

Force of will and courage is internal to the fighter. It's not a mysterious external process. So I don't know why the fighter can, through force of will and courage, leap 500 feet once per day. I don't know why he can't use that force of will and courage to do something else equally impressive once per day (which would be against the rules).

It's like the fighter wants ssoooooooooo badly to jump every day once a day and that it's. Does he have a sort of points pool that can be applied to various things he wants to do soooooooooo badly, or is it just for jumping?

I hope it isn't a "polite fiction" that unconciously and tragically prevents me from reconciling the plausibility of jumping over mountains due to magic (with its rituals and boundaries and pseudo-logic) vs a prescribed once daily burst of courage and will (just because due to a mythic dream logic that pops into the adventure for just that one instance and then mythic dream logic is conspicuously absent the rest of the time with people behaving in perfectly normal non-mythic ways). If so, I'm perfectly content to be on a different planet than certain other people.

Because I can get into the mind of the mage who wields great magicks using a sort of esoteric rulebook. I cannot, however, get into the mind of the fighter who wants sooooooooo badly to jump 500 feet every day and nothing else.

 

[Remathilis]

We, in the gaming community, perhaps should instead think in terms of "magic can do anything, in general, but any particular magician will be in some way bounded." You get something far more flavorful this way.

D&D magic is bounded, moreso than most worlds and settings (including our own). Wizards cannot heal, but are adept at travel, divination, summons, and blasts of magical energy. Clerics heal and have more alignment and buff-based magic. Druids use natural and elemental magic. Wizards use books and memorize/prepare spells, while sorcerers use magic spontaneously from a limited list. Warlocks can use a very finite list unlimitedly as a gift from an otherworldly patron. D&D magic flavorful; sometimes too flavorful, if "What kind of caster is Gandalf" arguments are any guide.

Why do you want to deny gonzo players their fun? I'd rather restrict gonzo mountain-throwers to epic. But that doesn't mean I want to push them out entirely.

Gonzo players have Exalted, Feng Shui and Fourth Edition. D&D is better when its grounded in reality and then allows magic to be the exception. Get your mountain chuckers out of my D&D. They can take the Wish spell with them.

You mean he's about equal to a low level bard with a reputation?

I think a low level bard with cream their pantaloons to do everything they can do AND still fight a dragon in melee.

My rule of thumb would start with the following based on the two archetypes:

1. The fighter should be a strong and tough juggernaut who is nearly unstoppable just as the wizard is tricksy and versatile.
2. If a fighter and a wizard have an arena duel the duel should be over if the fighter catches up with the wizard. No significant need to roll.
3. A wizard should not be able to one-shot a fighter of equal level in any way, shape, or form. (This doesn't mean no save-or-dies necessarily - a wizard vs wizard arena duel can quite happily end in SoD - the fighter's going to one shot the wizard anyway).

Then we get to level scaling.

1. If the wizard is five levels higher the fighter shouldn't stand a chance unless the wizard screws up or gets incredibly unlucky. The wizard can stay out of reach (e.g. flight + invisibility) and can quite probably throw a successful save or lose at the fighter.
2. If the fighter is five levels higher, the wizard shouldn't stand a chance unless the fighter screws up or gets tricked by something beyond the caster's power (e.g. tricked into running off a cliff or into a portal the wizard couldn't himself create).
3. If the fighter and wizard are of equal level the fighter should have a chance to overcome the wizard's defences before the wizard can trap him.

Just give Fighter's a Class Ability:

Kill Wizard: If you are adjacent to any character who casts spells, you automatically drop him to 0 hp next round. Doesn't work on Spellcasters 5 levels higher than you.

So yes, I want the fighter to be supernatural. It's the whole archetype - incredibly strong and tough that no one can stop. Human-only and can still hang with the big boys should be the rogue. Trickery and cunning to box above your weight. Not brute strength to wrestle a dragon.

The whole archetype of a fighter is someone who survives only through their knowledge of weapons and tactics along with their strength and stamina.

And no, if we're giving fighter's "magic", rogues get it too. Run across water. Teleport via shadows. Open a lock with a swift tap. Climb up an icewall using your teeth. Equal time: if we're making everyone special, we're making EVERYONE SPECIAL.

 

[billd91]

Design that relies on everyone in future doing things right is bad design.

??? How do you design something that doesn't do that? No matter how restrictive or hard the boundaries are, how do you prevent someone in the future from breaking them?

That sounds like an impossible standard to me.

 

[SKyOdin]

See and to me these are the important questions. You can say the fighter should be able to cut a mountain in half, but until we define the method, limitations, etc. How do I judge whether he should or shouldn't be able to?

Simple, we create mechanics that strictly define combat powers and generally define non-combat powers. For example, wizards and fighters would use the same in-combat power structure, while out of combat, they share a non-combat power structure made up of less specifically structured abilities.

For example:

Dowsing (Wizard x):
The wizard can use his magic to search for and locate objects he is familiar with within [yet to be determined distance].

Herculean Labor (Fighter y):
The fighter can perform superhuman feats of digging, excavation, and construction. With an hours work, the fighter can perform physical labor with the speed of a crew of 100 men.

 

[Fifth Element]

Compared to that, a thief's chance of failure more than makes up for whatever wazoo he can do. A thief's "magic" isn't all that magical when a wizard's magic is 100% effective.

Well, when I'm talking about a fighter doing mythic things, I'm actually talking about him having the chance to do mythic things. Not that he can necessarily just decide to do the thing, but the game at least giving him a chance to try it with a reasonable chance of success.

I wasn't aware that was an important distinction in the discussion. But there it is: the fighter's mythic stuff doesn't have to be 100% reliable in order to be mythic.

 

[TwinBahamut]

It's not about what's "good enough for me"... you're ignoring the fact that the game was NEVER created to exactly mimic those sources. I can certainly understand people wanting a fighter that is more powerful and versatile... hell, I even gave my own suggestions for it... but I don't see it as necessary that the classes power and versatility increase be based around mythology when there are other sources. As an example... In a straight up fight... Elric would probably kill Hercules (YeahI know this sounds like one of those playground arguments but bare with me for a sec.) not because he's a mythological hallf-god who can slice mountains in half... but because of the vampiric sentient sword he wields and the drugs coursing through his veins. I guess I just find their are other inspirations outside of mythology for bad ass fighters and I'm not sure if D&D shouldn't, like the wizard, come up with it's own take on it as opposed to apeing a specific source.

I'm going to drop the first part of your response since that debate has been going on just fine without me while I wasn't paying attention. This part, though, really needs to be addressed much more than it has been.

Honestly, I'm amazed you are actually making the claim that the desire of fans is, in of itself, not enough to warrant change to D&D. You are saying that D&D's traditions are more important than the desires of the fanbase, otherwise arguing that the tastes and preferences of older fans are more important than the tastes and preferences of newer fans or perhaps arguing that D&D is somehow above criticism and that, despite having clear flaws for decades, it is better to preserve those flaws for tradition's sake rather than fix them and create a better game. No matter what the reasoning is, I won't accept it.

If tradition is more important than actually making the game appeal to a greater number of fans, then D&D won't grow and expand and make people it happier. Instead, it will share the fate of the fans who want to preserve that tradition: death of old age. It will slowly fade into irrelevancy. Games new to grow, change, and adapt to the tastes of new fans if they want to survive. D&D is no different. If it fails to change and grow, then I see little reason to continue to financially support it. If 5E fails to even build upon 4E's progress on the very subject we're talking about, then I most certainly will never purchase it. I imagine many others will do the same. I wouldn't even mourn D&D's death if it chooses such a path.

Also, I really don't get at all what your Elric vs. Heracles discussion is all about. You don't even bother explaining why Elric would win... Not that I really care, since I've never read the Elric stories and absolutely do not care to. The idea of a drug-addled angsty anti-hero who kills everything he cares for with a soul-sucking sword doesn't really appeal to me, to be honest (and given that I like many crazy videogame plots, that's saying something). Is this some argument that only "Appendix N" books are allowed to be inspiration for D&D or something? If so, that's simply absurd.

Anyways, if you think I have been asking for specifically mythological inspiration, you're mistaken. As I believe someone else has stated, the kind of genuinely powerful fighter we are asking for is a trope of pretty much all of fantasy outside of D&D's own tiny little world. This includes myth, folktales, classical literature, historical pop culture, fantasy precursors like John Carter of Mars, modern fantasy works, anime, and videogames. Saying that D&D shouldn't emulate any of those is asking it to not emulate an awful lot of things... Especially given the fact that various 3E supplements and the entire Fourth Edition have already made good strides to accommodate such things. Arguing against imporessive Fighters isn't an argument for tradition, it's an argument for a reactionary redefinition of tradition that aims to bring regression rather than progress.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wizards in all editions of DND that I have books for (2, 3, 4) gain their access to magic through intense study.

My answer to that is "Because D&D has become it's own entity. It is no longer a hodgepodge of random influences, its sole influence is itself.

Now, that is a valid argument: D&D has always done things a certain way, and it should never change. It's a little more extreme and strident than mere nostalgia, but if that's who you feel, there's no arguing the point.

Besides, what does the word 'wizard' mean if it does not mean 'arcane technician'?

I've heard the roots imply "someone who is too wise for his own good (or anyone else's good)." But, yes, if you want to play a science fiction game with magic missiles instead of blasters, that works.

 

[Underman]

Give the fighter a pool of points. Call it Destiny Points or Luck Points or Cimmerian Blood Points or Steroids and Other Drugs Points or Demigod Points or however you fluff your fighter.

Use these points to add bonuses or rerolls to everything the fighter can do.

By setting DCs on various tasks, the DM can tweak fighter exploits as appropriate to the campaign. In an anime/mythic game, running along treetops is a doable at Level X. For other games, the DC is simply too high without magic boosts.