Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[mellored]

That's really a flavour problem with D&D.
Can anyone just mimic the wizard and cast a spell like anyone can following a cooking recipe and make a delicious meal? Maybe... maybe not. Even if you don't assume that being a wizard is like being a step above a gourmet chef as far as skill is involved, there might easily be some other limitation. Like Harry Potter where you need to train to be a wizard but some bloodline dependent power is still involved.
As for gods, this also assumes every single member of the clergy is a cleric, from the lowliest altar-boy to the high priest. Which *might* be true in some worlds, but I can't think of any setting that assumes the NPC priest is always a cleric. After all, if you could just pray once a day and get superpowers, why wouldn't everyone be a cleric?

It's a pretty fair assumption that being a fighter or monk or paladin takes some exceptional skill, and they should be really good and fighting and martial arts, and able to attempt many things the average person would not.

You just as easily claim the you need to be "born" with physical aptitude.

You need arms like this to be a rogue.
Which defiantly isn't something "anyone can do". At least not without serious injury.

 

[Jester David]

You just as easily claim the you need to be "born" with physical aptitude.

You need arms like this to be a rogue.
Which defiantly isn't something "anyone can do". At least not without serious injury.

You could absolutely say that rogues in your campaign setting *must* be double jointed.
I once designed a world where fighters were all reincarnated souls of great warriors from the past and had exceptional physical abilities assumed to be greater than the average person was capable of. Fighters were innately superiour and magical while not actually wielding magic. Common warriors could have great skill, but were never the equal of a fighter.

Even going generic, could there be mechanical options that require extremely special training and physical aptitude? Sure. I'm not arguing against that.
Those are class features as not everyone can be a rogue or fighter (well… anyone can be anything at first level, but not everyone can multiclass into every class). There certainly *should* be some specialized martial powers. I'm pro-feats and Battle Master maneuvers and class features. And I like the idea of specialization, where the fighter who wants to be the "best" at something (fighting with a shield, fighting on a horse, etc) has an option.

What I'm opposed to is the need to have everything codified and the need to have every action in combat the result of a special power. Unless it's a specialization that you build your character around, it probably doesn't need to be a class feature.
The "shield warrior" fighter needs abilities that let her do exceptional things while wielding a shield: either a bonus effect applied to regular actions or as a bonus action on top of regular actions. But we don't need a dozen small maneuvers that are just regular actions; we do not need a "shield bash" power that allows a "shield warrior" to hit with their shield as an offhand weapon, because that just means no other fighter can hit someone with their shield. That option is taken away from everyone. (And we get a Pathfinder situation where you cannot do anything unless you have an option that says you can do that.) Instead, the "shield warrior" should be able to hit someone and push them, or knock them prone, or gain double the shield bonus to AC to that target, which makes them *better* at hitting with a shield while leaving generic hitting with a shield up to the DM.
However, because of the baseline power of the game, when you're making an attack like that - which by its very nature is an attack plus - you have to slap a limiter on it. The attack either needs to be situational or usable a set number of times per day or replace an existing at-will option.

 

[mellored]

What I'm opposed to is the need to have everything codified and the need to have every action in combat the result of a special power. Unless it's a specialization that you build your character around, it probably doesn't need to be a class feature.
The "shield warrior" fighter needs abilities that let her do exceptional things while wielding a shield: either a bonus effect applied to regular actions or as a bonus action on top of regular actions. But we don't need a dozen small maneuvers that are just regular actions; we do not need a "shield bash" power that allows a "shield warrior" to hit with their shield as an offhand weapon, because that just means no other fighter can hit someone with their shield. That option is taken away from everyone. (And we get a Pathfinder situation where you cannot do anything unless you have an option that says you can do that.) Instead, the "shield warrior" should be able to hit someone and push them, or knock them prone, or gain double the shield bonus to AC to that target, which makes them *better* at hitting with a shield while leaving generic hitting with a shield up to the DM.

I agree, if you do that with spells as well.

i.e.
Anyone can cast fireball, but only wizards/clerics/duirds can do it as an action. They are *better* at it.

 

[Jester David]

I agree, if you do that with spells as well.

i.e.
Anyone can cast fireball, but only wizards/clerics/duirds can do it as an action. They are *better* at it.

You assume I'd let *any* character attempt a marital act. I'd require proficiency to use a shield bash for example, and some kill at fighting to fight unarmed. I wouldn't let a wizard do it.
And, again, some moves should require specialized training. That's why feats and maneuvers exist. Just not every maneuver.

That said, In some fictional universes anyone CAN use a spell by reading from a spellbook, completing rituals and the like.
You're certainly free to add that as an optional rule for your game.

Typically in D&D worlds, magic takes significantly more skill, which is represented by training in a class or a feat. And magical knowledge is harder: it's not just a physical task, also involving some mental training.

 

[mellored]

Typically in D&D worlds, magic takes significantly more skill, which is represented by training in a class or a feat. And magical knowledge is harder: it's not just a physical task, also involving some mental training.

I don't see how casting magic missile takes significantly more skill then getting +2 to hit with weapons.

 

[Jester David]

I don't see how casting magic missile takes significantly more skill then getting +2 to hit with weapons.

Your argument makes a few assumptions:
1) There are specialized fighting maneuver that a high level fighter cannot even attempt without skilled training.
2) The skill requirement of learning these specialized fighting maneuvers is the equal of learning a spell.
And for balance reasons:
3) A fighter can only learn so many of these specialized fighting maneuvers at a time, limited by their level, and cannot just practice and train during downtime days to learn them all.

Can you give a couple examples of such a maneuver? That aren't just "+2 to attack".
Something that cannot be approximated under the current rules with a DM's permission and isn't just a subclass that books haven't gotten around to yet.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't see how casting magic missile takes significantly more skill then getting +2 to hit with weapons.

The rules imply it takes less. A 1st level wizard can learn to cast magic missile, in addition to several other spells, several cantrips, and getting a +2 to hit in a selection of weapons. He can even learn magic missile on his first adventure, if he didn't start with it and encounters a text of it, he can just study it and add it to his spells known.

Your argument makes a few assumptions:
1) There are specialized fighting maneuver that a high level fighter cannot even attempt without skilled training.
2) The skill requirement of learning these specialized fighting maneuvers is the equal of learning a spell.
And for balance reasons:
3) A fighter can only learn so many of these specialized fighting maneuvers at a time, limited by their level, and cannot just practice and train during downtime days to learn them all.

Can you give a couple examples of such a maneuver?

Those would all seem to apply to the BM's maneuvers. But moreso:

2) It's actually a lot harder for a BM to learn a new maneuver than for a wizard to learn a new spell.
A Battlemaster can only learn a half dozen or so maneuvers over 20 levels, but a wizard can learn many spells, can even learn a new spell by encountering a text of it and studying it. Seems it's almost trivially easy to learn a spell compared to learning a maneuver. OTOH, Magic Initiate and Martial Adept put about the same feat cost on learning a spell or maneuver 'off label.' Even if you compare BM to EK, the EK learns more spells faster (and of increasing level) than the BM learns maneuvers (that aren't leveled).

3) Is not for balance reasons: a BM who could spend his CS die on any maneuver in the book would hardly be imbalanced. He'd barely be noticeably better than the usual 3-maneuver BM. Perhaps, it's so every BM won't be identical?

 

[jayoungr]

You assume I'd let *any* character attempt a marital act.

You believe in keeping your games G-rated eh?

 

[Jester David]

You believe in keeping your games G-rated eh?

I wish I could blame autocorrect...

 

[pemerton]

could there be mechanical options that require extremely special training and physical aptitude? Sure. I'm not arguing against that.
Those are class features as not everyone can be a rogue or fighter (well… anyone can be anything at first level, but not everyone can multiclass into every class). There certainly *should* be some specialized martial powers.

<snip>

What I'm opposed to is the need to have everything codified and the need to have every action in combat the result of a special power.

I don't see how casting magic missile takes significantly more skill then getting +2 to hit with weapons.

One very evident design feature of D&D - but one that often seems to be overlooked in discussions about its design - is that a huge amount of variation between individual PCs, and between classes, feats etc - is not variation in the fiction but simply variation in the mechanics.

For instance, the difference between a bonus to damage, a bonus to hit and a bonus attack is not (or certainly need not) be any difference in the fiction, given that the attack mechanic is an abstraction, the relationship between hitting and damage is an abstraction (damage on a miss/successful save, anyone?), etc.

The barbarian gets d12 HD and CON-based AC and damage resistance. In the fiction, these are all the same thing: the barbarian is tough and hard to bring down by way of violence or mental assault.

Having a warlord be able to grant buffs, or manipulate the action economy, doesn't change what anyone can do in the fiction. It doesn't make people fight who couldn't, for instance. These are various mechanical devices that D&D makes available for expressing the rather simple idea in the fiction that the presence of this person inspires his/her fellows.