Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7813291" data-attributes="member: 996">Powers were not all supernatural. Martial powers were not.  That's a fact.  Your opinion doesn't change that fact.  (Now, if we're talking cleaving to the Primacy of Magic, then the fighter having powers that could be perceived as magical and/or that rival the magical powers of other classes would be a red flag.  An exploit or maneuver that's too powerful, in a case of iron-clad circular reasoning, either would be magical, and thus couldn't be a fighter maneuver, or wouldn't be magical and thus couldn't be allowed to be so powerful.  That is, if the Primacy of Magic is treated as a goal, axiom, Essential to D&D.)So, leave out 'supernatural nature.'  That leaves resource management & structure.  Now, /every/ caster in 1e and 2e, used the same resource management - Vancian - and the same structure (all spells had the same stat block). In 3e, there was the spontaneous-casting variation on Vancian, and not only did all spells have the same structure, they were all mixed together in one list with many spell shared. In 5e, the difference between neo-Vancian 'prepped' and 'known' casters is remarkably slight, and they're all spontaneous with regard to resource management.  Most have few, and the sorcerer has no, unique spells on their lists.  And, yet, all that is somehow not a problem that makes all caster feel generic and samey?Again, it sounds like your point is related to Campbell's observation that other eds (Real D&D editions, that respect the Primacy of Magic, I'd say) put a higher priority on differentiating casters from non-casters, than casters from eachother. Well, arcane powers tend to be able to do literally anything, so not too surprising.  I mean, fighters attacked very effectively in melee (and little else), back in the day, a Tensers Transformation, and so did the Magic-User.  Still, what things were those?It think the point would be more interesting could you scrub the Wizard name & Arcane keyword & fluff off a wizard attack spell, and have a fighter attack exploit, ready for martial fluff.A survey of fighter & wizard powers reveals some very significant differences:  Wizards don't have a single weapon power.  Fighters don't have any implement powers.  Fighters also don't have area powers, having mostly melee, while wizards are mostly range/area.  That prettymuch leaves Close powers.   The fighters Close powers tend to be close burst 1, and affect enemies /the fighter can see/.  The wizard's tend to be blasts, some affect all creatures, some only enemies (but all enemies).  The fighter does untyped damage with his weapon, the wizard mostly does various elemental damage types, sometimes psychic, occasionally radiant. No candidates leap to mind.  The exploits of the fighter and spells of the caster actually very different.  Moreso than, say, the spells of Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock are from eachother in 5e.I guess the issue, then, is why is it only the martial classes that /need/ to have different structure & resource management?  The Primacy of Magic as Essence of D&D is certainly one potential, underlying reason.</blockquote>

Verification