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

[Crazy Jerome]

I see these as simple level ranges/caps.

In traditional D&D thinking, I do too. However, it is becoming apparent to me that "level" carries more meaning than I once thought it did, to a lot of people. And I wasn't exactly disparaging it previously.

Plus, I'm trying to find away around the inherent problems that I mentioned earlier of level carrying too much, covering both "power" and "scope" of the character. It's tricky, because "scope" is a kind of flexible power distinguished from raw "power."

Finally, there is Underman's point about the "weapon master" character. In my scheme, this is a non-mythic but high-level character. (Probably the middle "sword and sorcery" path, but you could even make a case for very high level mundane.) Meanwhile, for those that want something more toned down across the board, you get a "restricted" wizard who can achieve high levels, but doesn't run rampant.

You can think of the "mundane/restricted" path as a systemized version of 3E E6, built into the game from the beginning instead of kludged on top of it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I hold that we should start with strong rules of thumb that cordon off expertise. I put a number of my thoughts in a previous thread.

What I would like to see a strong vision, based on the "Ghostbusters Test", i.e. Who Ya Gonna Call?
Who ya gonna call when facing a demon infestation? Wizard.
Who ya gonna call when facing undead in the city sewers? Cleric.
Who ya gonna call when facing an invading army? Fighter.

Remathilis' list of high-powered Fighter abilities shows there is room for mechanically mundane heroics. In particular, we can explore the Morale Space.

I would like to see Fighters with abilities like: After killing a foe, every enemy in LOS and within 120 feet, who both lower in HD than the victim and the Fighter, are Shaken. Of course, we can add in the obvious Fear Immunity for Fighters of name level (e.g. level 10) (plus Paladins and raging Barbarian w/ the berzerker theme are immune to fear as well).

And then we kill the Marshal and take some of his stuff. And we add abilities like Rally (remove Shaken for allies within 30 feet, by engaging the most dangerous seeming opponent in melee), etc.

I want to see a high-level Fighter who can potentially charge in with his cohort and followers and chase an entire army off the field. The only practical defense should be officers (Fighters) who are brave enough to face the oncoming hero, so that they can use their own special Fighter powers to stave off the disintegration of their army.

 

[Imaro]

I see these as simple level ranges/caps.

I don't know if it's that cut and dry. There is a subset of S&S fiction with very powerful fighter protagonists who are made that way through the weapons (really more like artifacts) that they wield or other artificial means as opposed to it being an inherent trait. How would you represent and balance that type of hero with just level caps?

 

[MarkB]

Why can't other people mentally and physically prepare themselves in order to perform exploits? It seems like something the majority of athletes and combatants would do??

And if I were building an Olympic-class athlete in pretty much any edition of D&D I'm familiar with (2e onwards), probably the first thing I'd do is slap on a couple of levels of Fighter to give him the appropriate combination of physical prowess and focused athletic skills. So that actually works out just fine.

Yes, the model being proposed here for fighters could easily be adapted to top-of-the line participants in almost any physical endeavour. Good suggestion, well made.

But, as has been pointed out, that's just the top-of-the-line folks, not every bandit or city watchman. PC classes, including martial classes, are special - they represent heroic adventurers, not everyday folks.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't know if it's that cut and dry. There is a subset of S&S fiction with very powerful fighter protagonists who are made that way through the weapons (really more like artifacts) that they wield or other artificial means as opposed to it being an inherent trait. How would you represent and balance that type of hero with just level caps?

Once he reaches the Fighter Cap, he cna take the "Artificat Weapon Master" PrC.
If you take his precious artifact away, it's like with a spellcaster and his staff/spellbook/wand - he can't do his special tricks* anymore.

Thanks to bounded accuracy in D&D Next, we probably don't even need to worry about mysterious base attack bonuses or half level bonuses that should or should not be lost if you lose access to your class features.

Also, if everyone is special, no one is was something a villain said, and he was wrong. If you've got one guy that can shoot fireballs and another that can stretch his legs and arms up to 50 meters, they are both special. Only if everyone has the very same abilities, they stop being special and are normal. But even then, we're talking about RPGs - even inf an RPG gave everyone stretching and fireball shooting, it's pretty special, since I can't do that in real life and I don't know of anyone that can do that either.


*) Except the special tricks, of course, he may have gained due to his artifact mastery that allow him to retain some of its powerful magic or just outright call the item back, similar to how a wizard may learn spell mastery in 3E and can prepare some spells without his book.

 

[bert1000]

How does the Justice League do it?

Seems like there are two major camps:

1) I want to play a fighter character/archetype that starts off mundane and then becomes a mythic hero (e.g., throw boulders, make demons run from their battle cry)
2) I want a fighter character/archetype that remains mundane, an extremely skilled fighter but one that can only do stuff that is grounded in the top edges of real life human skill, strength, agility, etc.

I am also going to assume the following :

A) D&D is a fantasy rpg that is geared toward characters that form teams to tackle challenges
B) D&D is a game and the majority of its players have more fun when their character has similar levels of importance and contribution (although not necc. via the same method!!) than other team members
C) Wizards are going to look more like their 3e version than the 4e version.

Since its stated aim is to be the game for everyone, it seems to me that DDN should try to provide the above two archtypes.

If C) holds true, then I think we end up with the Justice League / Avengers conundrum. How can Batman and Superman be on the same team? This is not just from comic books but any medium that has two protagonists with widely different “combat” power levels.

Here are the typical ways that fiction deals with this:
· The higher power level individual often has crazy limitations on their power that enemies can exploit (not really true of3e like D&D Wizards)
· The lower power level person often has other traits that allow that person to contribute something other than his fighting prowess. Batman has intelligence, connections, technology, money, etc.
· The author works hard to provide situations and challenges where the lower power person’s other, non-fighting traits can shine. Sometimes this is done well, sometimes it seems artificial.
· The lower power level person tends to have amazing luck / fate

For the #2 archtype to work, I think DDN needs to embrace some metagame / narrative mechanics to model the luck as well as give the fighter some interesting non-fighting options (intelligence, connections, technology, money, etc.) so they can contribute in ways other than raw combat power.

 

[Remathilis]

If C) holds true, then I think we end up with the Justice League / Avengers conundrum. How can Batman and Superman be on the same team? This is not just from comic books but any medium that has two protagonists with widely different “combat” power levels.

Its funny, me and a couple of friends talked about how D&D should be like the Avenger's movie.

Captain America should be a Paladin: leading from the front and doing heroic things, being a shiny example.
Iron Man is a wizard: flying, shooting lasers, outthinking his foes.
Hulk is a Barbarian. Smash!
Thor is a Fighter with a kickass magical weapon.
Hawkeye is a ranger/archer with an awesome array of magic arrows.
Black Widow is a Rogue; quicky, sneaky, manipulative.

Each character got a moment to shine in the movie. Each did his schtick, and had a moment or two where they were the hero. Sure, Black Widow couldn't beat Hulk in a fight, but she did figure out how to stop Loki and pull off an amazing stunt to do it.

D&D should try to balance its game for more moments like this rather than try to make Hawkeye and Black Widow on par with Thor and Hulk in a fight.

 

[Lanefan]

First off, I wouldn't call fighters being able to do cool, superhuman stuff "magic". Magic is stuff like trowing fireballs and flight.

What would you call it then, once something goes beyond reality into fantasy? Spells and enchantments are obviously magic, why not wahoo fighter (and monk) abilities?

Second, since when did guards in town count as fighters? In 3E, they would have been warriors at best, and more likely commoners. In 4E, they wouldn't possess classes at all, let alone PC classes.

Yet they should, end of story.

They might not have very much skill at what they do, but they can do it. 0th-level fighters. (is that called a "warrior" in 3e?)

Anyways, the PCs are by their very nature special. They are the PCs! The main protagonists! They are the heroes!

No.

They're the ones we players and DMs pay the most attention to, sure; but by no means are they the only ones of their ilk in the game world.

There's other adventurers out there. The game needs it to be so! If the PC party are the only adventurers in the world and half of them irrevocably die, what then? That's right - you need some more adventurers. And where do those adventurers come from? Hm?

And where's this assumption about the PCs being heroes coming from? More often than not the only thing driving them is greed...

PCs play by different rules than everyone else. This different scale of ability makes them special within the game world.

To a point, perhaps; but I'd say that specialness comes from what they do with those abilities rather than just the mere having of them.

There's lots of adventurers in town who have the abilities to go out and rescue the princess; the PCs are special only because they're the ones who get on and do it.

Lan-"greed is rescuing the princess from her kidnappers then turning around and demanding a bigger ransom for her return"-efanefan

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

4e is not in any way, shape, or form gonzo. The gonzo was left behind in 3.X. What 4e is is low power mythic.

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

I think a low power bard would do something else to their pantaloons at the thought of fighting a dragon in melee But seriously, the big thing a fighter gets to do out of combat is be a low power bard???

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.

And the fighter is still more or less irrelevant except as a mobile wall. Although come to think of it you've removed the cleric from the battle line... The problem is that the fighter can not get to the wizard.

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 I say unto you nonsense! Some fighters are that way. But the archetype of fighter is the guy who takes point and holds the line.

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.

You miss my point

I've never seen the rogue do anything unequivocally magical. I mean seriously. He's been locked in that room all the time. And there's no way out except past me and it only opens from the outside. And ... damnit! Where did he go? And... my wallet's missing. As are my keys... But I still haven't seen him do anything magic!

That's the point. Fighters are about physical force. Which means that given what they face they need to violate the laws of physics. Rogues are about cunning and misdirection. It's a lot harder to pinpoint something the rogue does that says "You have to be magical to do this"

I've argued in the past that rogues should get something like the following talent from Spirit of the Century:

✪ Master of Disguise [Deceit]

Requires Clever Disguise and Mimicry.The character can convincingly pass himself off as nearly anyone with a little time and preparation. To use this ability, the player pays a fate point and temporarily stops playing. His character is presumed to have donned a disguise and gone “off camera”. At any subsequent point during play the player may choose any nameless, filler character (a villain’s minion, a bellboy in the hotel, the cop who just pulled you over) in a scene and reveal that that character is actually the PC in disguise!


The character may remain in this state for as long as the player chooses, but if anyone is tipped off that he might be nearby, an investigator may spend a fate point and roll Investigate against the disguised character’s Deceit. If the investigator wins, his player (which may be the GM) gets to decide which filler character is actually the disguised PC (“Wait a minute – you’re the Emerald Emancipator!”).
​

Is that ability magical or not? I could make the case either way. It doesn't matter. But I think no one would argue that the ability wasn't special.

??? 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.

Oh ffs. People will break the boundaries. But the problem is that in a robust system it's easy to see when they've broken the boundaries.

Reading "The Deed of Paksennarion" now - and, one of the major plot elements involves a character having their courage and willpower sapped for an extended period of time, so they cannot continue to fight. Written with symptoms disturbingly close to post-traumatic stress disorder.

Seriously, Paks is IMO the best D&D fiction ever written. It's also only $6 for a three novel omnibus e-book if anyone hasn't read it. Or you can legally read the first of the three books for free.

Because when does it stop?

Do all fighters get magic, or just the PCs?

Anyone who can take a blow from a hill giant without turning into strawberry jam, or can take breath from a dragon without turning into a cinder needs to be magic. Second spearman from the left probably doesn't have magic - and neither does the level 2 PC fighter. (Other than minor rituals but that's a setting issue).

Because if everyone is special, nobody is.

High level characters are all special. It's part of being high level.

Would it help if we made the "fighter" kind of a cross between a regular class and a 3E NPC class, and kept him strictly mundane? Maybe capped his effective power around 10th level

I think the cap is below that. But yes. Yes it would. If you tell people starting to play a fighter that "This class caps at level 10" I would have no problem. People would probably stop playing it so much. But the class would no longer be presenting false information and pretending to be a match for other high level classes.

If you want a class that does that I'm in full agreement at least as long as people have a way to either get round the cap or use a parallel class (as your warrior idea is).

What I would like to see a strong vision, based on the "Ghostbusters Test", i.e. Who Ya Gonna Call?
Who ya gonna call when facing a demon infestation? Wizard.
Who ya gonna call when facing undead in the city sewers? Cleric.
Who ya gonna call when facing an invading army? Fighter.

... Seriously? If I'm facing an invading army, the fighter is the last person I'm going to call. I want logistics (wizard). I want to shatter their morale and leave them running round in circles not knowing which orders to follow or who to trust (bard). I want to raise the whole countryside up against them (druid). What I don't need is someone who can very simply be buried under a mound of bodies.

The time I call the fighter is when there's an invading dragon.

 

[SKyOdin]

What would you call it then, once something goes beyond reality into fantasy? Spells and enchantments are obviously magic, why not wahoo fighter (and monk) abilities?

I think superhuman suffices. Maybe "strong as a hundred men", if you are willing to be more precise.

Yet they should, end of story.

They might not have very much skill at what they do, but they can do it. 0th-level fighters. (is that called a "warrior" in 3e?)

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.

4E of course completely dropped the idea of needing to hand out classes to NPCs, and uses monster generation rules if you need to fight said guards.

So town guards haven't been assumed to be fighters for at least two editions now.

No.

They're the ones we players and DMs pay the most attention to, sure; but by no means are they the only ones of their ilk in the game world.

There's other adventurers out there. The game needs it to be so! If the PC party are the only adventurers in the world and half of them irrevocably die, what then? That's right - you need some more adventurers. And where do those adventurers come from? Hm?

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.

And where's this assumption about the PCs being heroes coming from? More often than not the only thing driving them is greed...

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.

Lan-"greed is rescuing the princess from her kidnappers then turning around and demanding a bigger ransom for her return"-efanefan

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.