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

Underman

First Post
Interesting. Because that really wasn't my reading. Mine was that there were people (e.g. @Lanefan or @Remathilis ) who seem unhappy with the very idea of a fighter being more than mundane.
Maybe, but if that's true, it's because you're a bad salesman, you aren't listening to the customer and selling to them what they need to hear (not you, but the general "you"). So if they're saying 'a fighter is like Batman' then give a reason for turning Batman into Superman, and not the reason you're thinking (ie., class balance) but the reason they're seeking (ie., alchemical drug injections, fey boon, semi-divine status, etc.). I'm not guaranteeting they will buy into everything you throw at them, but it's better than what's going on now. I'm practically bending backwards to explain what I need to suspend disbelief and instead get a lot of "that's not necessary in my game". Well it is necessary if you don't want a certain category of people to be unhappy, and you clearly don't want them to be unhappy else you wouldn't try so hard to convince them, right?

There are other people (e.g. me or @pmerton) who think that the fighter can not fulfil the fighter archetype if they remain merely mundane - instead they become messy red smears at high level.
Is that the only 2 options though? We've already covered so many options, starting at "limit the wizard so the fighter doesn't have to throw mountains" and then explored other territories from there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
Interesting. Because that really wasn't my reading. Mine was that there were people (e.g. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] or [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]) who seem unhappy with the very idea of a fighter being more than mundane. There are other people (e.g. me or @pmerton) who think that the fighter can not fulfil the fighter archetype if they remain merely mundane - instead they become messy red smears at high level.

Just to be clear; I don't necessarily want fighters to be weak or unable to handle melee combat with dragons, demons, and giants. I just don't think they need to mimic spellcasters in wondrous endeavors. A mythic fighter is already strong, can take blows that would kill a lesser man, and fell great beasts. I just don't want them making strength checks to make new rivers.

Or to put it a different way: I don't mind if high-level fighters choke out the Nemean Lion or wrestling Cerebus, but I don't want him taking Atlas's job for the day...
 

Just to be clear; I don't necessarily want fighters to be weak or unable to handle melee combat with dragons, demons, and giants. I just don't think they need to mimic spellcasters in wondrous endeavors. A mythic fighter is already strong, can take blows that would kill a lesser man, and fell great beasts. I just don't want them making strength checks to make new rivers.

Or to put it a different way: I don't mind if high-level fighters choke out the Nemean Lion or wrestling Cerebus, but I don't want him taking Atlas's job for the day...
The question I have is if it's actually enough to be balanced against a Wizard?
It probably depends on a lot of factors, even if we eliminate all the campaign-specific ones.

It could very well be enough. In 4E, a Wizard can cast Linked Portal, a Fighter cannot. UNless, of course, the Fighter learns to cast rituals, but let's say he doesn't and the rules even say he can't. Even then, the Wizard can still be balanced, because Linked Portal is very limited and it costs money and time to cast. Even with a more powerful version, say 3E's teleport, it could be fair, if it's not a cheap spell to cast. Teleport in 3E doesn't have any material cost but it could have one in Next. And that may make a significant difference, since now "novaing" some effects is not just something you fix by sleeping it off, you must earn money for these costly spells.
And you can go even a step further - if you don't want a campaign where high level characters must have 50,000 gp, you can describe each of these costly material components as special items. So in a a low-money campaign, a Wizard finds a Teleportation Stone that he can use to cast Teleport with. But he cannot go to the magic item shop nearby and exchange it against 5,000 gold pieces, since there aren't such shops, and even if there are - the best they could do is trade you in for another magic item of similar item. So the characters may have "expensive" items, but they could still be dirt poor, since there is no way to turn a teleportation stone or a raise dead salve into food. And in a campaign where you are okay with 5,000 gold pieces around, you can allow the wizard with teleport to spend that money to either buy (if your campaign also has magic itme shops) or create (if you prefer item creation rules).

I mention only Teleport here, but it could also apply to other spells. Maybe Disintegrate requires a costly component, and has an instant death effect. But there is a same level spell that has no cost that only deals good damage. The latter is more balanced against the fighter, the former less so.

It will also be a concious group decision what kind of spells the wizard gets his components for once it cuts into the party profits, and this may overall give all players a stronger feel that a particular spell was a group effort. And in addition, there isn't really a benefit to play a spellcaster only campaign in a campaign where 15 minute adventuring days are likely, since the party couldn't even afford all the "nova" and "show-stealing" spells for 4-5 characters.
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
I mean folks who currently only play 4ed. used to play 3ed (and maybe even earlier editions) before 4ed was introduced.
This isn't true in my case. I didn't use to play 3E (I did use to play AD&D, back when it was still the current edition). Some members of my group played 3E games. One member had never played D&D (I introduced him to fantasy RPGing with Rolemaster) until our 4e game started.

For me, 4e was the system that led me back to GMing D&D after nearly 20 years of running something else.

Perhaps I'm an outlier, though.
 

Maybe, but if that's true, it's because you're a bad salesman, you aren't listening to the customer and selling to them what they need to hear (not you, but the general "you"). So if they're saying 'a fighter is like Batman' then give a reason for turning Batman into Superman, and not the reason you're thinking (ie., class balance) but the reason they're seeking (ie., alchemical drug injections, fey boon, semi-divine status, etc.). I'm not guaranteeting they will buy into everything you throw at them, but it's better than what's going on now. I'm practically bending backwards to explain what I need to suspend disbelief and instead get a lot of "that's not necessary in my game". Well it is necessary if you don't want a certain category of people to be unhappy, and you clearly don't want them to be unhappy else you wouldn't try so hard to convince them, right?

We've been here several pages back. I forget who it was (it may even have been me) who proposed that fighters got to pick from at least half a dozen different forms of empowerment from the ambient magic that means giants don't collapse under their own weight to being born a demigod to spells cast on them.

But from what I can tell you are the only person left arguing for what you are - many options have been given in this thread. Instead Remathilis is arguing explicitely for a cap on the power of the fighter below.

Just to be clear; I don't necessarily want fighters to be weak or unable to handle melee combat with dragons, demons, and giants. I just don't think they need to mimic spellcasters in wondrous endeavors. A mythic fighter is already strong, can take blows that would kill a lesser man, and fell great beasts. I just don't want them making strength checks to make new rivers.

Or to put it a different way: I don't mind if high-level fighters choke out the Nemean Lion or wrestling Cerebus, but I don't want him taking Atlas's job for the day...

Then I have a question for you. What is the fighter meant to do when the Tarrasque comes calling? Or Ogremoch? Take the day off? Get swallowed with a single gulp?

And this is the problem. There will always be a bigger monster. People don't seem to want to cap spells - and bigger, scarier monsters are cool. But you seem to think that the epic fighter should be impossible?
 

I would love to see a new game. Not a frankensteined mix of every previous edition.
I think there's a big difference between a Frankenstein edition - grafting parts from various older editions together and hoping they work together - and designing a new edition from the ground up, with said design being informed by stuff from various older editions.
 

Because the fighter used to be landbound all this life and suddenly takes off 1 x day for no reason that nobody wants to give me to help me buy into it?
Sorry, but this aspect of it has been discussed extensively earlier in the thread. Many suggestions have been provided, so claiming now that no one's tried to help seems disingenuous.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I don't need to jump 200' chasms.

But who is okay with my fighter jumping 50' up?

He can't slice off the dragon's head. It's too tall. Poor guy can't reach. I can't look at him flail around anymore. Its so sad and pathetic.
 

Underman

First Post
Sorry, but this aspect of it has been discussed extensively earlier in the thread. Many suggestions have been provided, so claiming now that no one's tried to help seems disingenuous.
How do you figure when I was just having that conversation with pemerton the last page or two, and also with YOU just yesterday. The constant comparisons to giants and therefore fighters can do anything (with no accompanying explanation, I believe one phrase was "not needed")? Suggestions may have been provided, but not embraced, at least not in the way that my suspension of disbelief was requested for analysis.

Edit: I didn't claim that nobody tried to help; Mustrum_Ridcully has been a star at solution-based posts, but he's not the one countering my preferences
 
Last edited:

Crazy Jerome

First Post
No one has even mentioned the real problem with Fighters as Batman? If we do that, and have Batman and Paladins in the same game, think of how turbo-charged the alignment arguments will get. :hmm:

I do think there is a nuance to the Fighter as Batman that depends upon what you mean when you say going "toe to toe with a dragon"--and necessarily tying into how you view hit points.

For me, even with a more explicitly mythic character, I view the mythic in that case as going toe to toe, but the dragon never gets a clean shot. You can't parry a claw that large (realistically), but there is enough D&D strength in this fighter that he dodges a little, knocks the claw slightly out of line, and then it glances off of his shield. That's still a "hit" in hit point terms, but the claw is not wrapped around the fighter. If an 10 year old, slight girl can parry a foil wielded by a grown male--and they can with the proper leverage, then I don't see why an 16+ Str high level D&D fighter can't partially parry a claw. The mythic part is in the speed and reflexes needed to pull that kind of thing off consistently.

Obviously, this doesn't work if you view hit points as "meat." And it's got a few holes for some of the other conceptions of mythic.
 

Remove ads

Top