D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[ECMO3]

He is a Maiar, that people have no concept / understanding of that is why they call him a wizard

Words matter, but if you want to make an argument it should not be based on ‘namecalling’, it should be based on the actual fiction

They call him a Wizard because Tolkien calls him a Wizard, specifically.

First of all, he would be called a Maiar, an angel is just the closest common thing to that.

Second, just because he is not called that in a book that concerns itself with a few years out of several thousand years of history does not mean he isn’t one. Tolkien is very clear about Gandalf not being a wizard in the D&D sense, he wrote more than just LotR

If he is not called an Angel, then the argument he is an Angel is weak compared to the argument that he is a Wizard.

Further, I don't think this idea supports your argument at all. Gandalf is a Wizard. He is explicitly called a "Wizard" in the novels. If Wizard=Angel in Tolkein then a Wizard should clearly be more than a standard non-caster. If the game is to mimic tolkein, then this would be an argument for an even more lopsided game, not a more leveled one.

Finally as I mentioned earlier, it is not only Wizards in Tolkein. It is magic in general. Bilbo acoomplishes things because of magic, not because of his non-caster prowess. Bilbo used his ring, multiple times, to accomplish what a D&D Rogue can generally accomplish without magic. Here again the novels are more lopsided than the game in magic vs. non-magic.

Bottom line - If "Wizards" are near gods in the most popular fantasy series in history then games following that genre trope for Wizards should elevate wizards, way, way above other non-Wizards.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

you said it is realistic to be able to train until you are good to explain how someone can jump to the moon without magic, so this feels very nitpicky.

That is like saying it is grounded in reality that a car can go at the speed of light, because we know that cars can drive at 50 mph, and this is just more of the same

My intent was to demonstrate to that other person that it is indeed possible to have completely non-magical characters spank the crap out of "magic users".

It was just a bonus to me that there was nothing supernatural at all about...

• ...The presentation. Just physical jumping.
• ...The source of the "power" itself. Training.

Edit: It is funny how yet another thread has devolved into a caster vs martial balance discussion.

 

[mamba]

Which I did, and you are largely ignoring

I am not ignoring it. I said that using D&D books is circular and that your argument is better without them.

If I were ignoring them, I would have said that you have no argument without them

TSR and then WOTC were the largest producer of fantasy literature in the late 80s, 90s and 00s. It is not possible to state what is "generally true" in fantasy literature during those periods if you are excluding them.

that is not my problem and does not fix that it is circular reasoning. If you want to make a case with 80s to 00s literature at all, do so with non-D&D literature.

Even then it could be argued that it was influenced by the popularity of D&D, but outright D&D novels can / must be dismissed entirely if you want to use literature as evidence for your case

That is not what I did. Go back and read my post. I did not start this off by talking about literature, other people brought Lituratue into the discussion by claiming that this was not a popular theme in fantasy literature.

ok, so you have shown that it exists in popular literature starting in the 40s or whatever. Don’t think I ever argued against that point

Here is my statement which people incorrectly claim is refuted by literature:

"Thematically, martial abilities should be limited and weak compared to magic, and a PC who purposely decides to forgo magic should be limited and weak to a PC that doesn't IMO."

There is nothing at all about literature in there and it is how I phrased this in my first post on this thread.

so now that you have shown that it exists in literature, those that say you are wrong because it does not will have to bring their literature counter-claims

As far as I am concerned I do not care about whether it is backed up by literature or not, the claim has to stand on its own in the context of a TTRPG rather than a book. Mechanics that can be entertaining to read in a book do not automatically make for a good TTRPG experience

 

[mamba]

They call him a Wizard because Tolkien calls him a Wizard, specifically.

I was talking about the other characters in the book, not the readers

In any case, both are wrong to do so. If you want to use Gandalf in an argument then it should be based on what he is in Tolkien’s mind, not what uninformed people use to refer to him. That makes for a bad argument

If he is not called an Angel, then the argument he is an Angel is weak compared to the argument that he is a Wizard.

that is not how that works, see above

Further, I don't think this idea supports your argument at all. Gandalf is a Wizard. He is explicitly a Wizard in the novels. If Wizard=Angel in Tolkein then a Wizard should clearly be more than a standard non-caster. If the game is to mimic tolkein, then this would be an argument for an even more lopsided game, not a more leveled one.

it would be an argument for there being no caster characters, only NPCs…

Finally as I mentioned earlier, it is not only Wizards in Tolkein. It is magic in general. Bilbo acoomplishes things because of magic, not because of his non-caster prowess. Bilbo used his ring, multiple times, to accomplish what a D&D Rogue can generally accomplish without magic.

yes, there is one very rare magic item that helps him to turn invisible a few times. Quite impressive in the context of D&D magic, only the most powerful casters can accomplish such a feat - oh wait, that is a 2nd level spell…

Bottom line - If "Wizards" are near gods in the most popular fantasy series in history then games following that genre trope for Wizards should elevate wizards, way, way above other non-Wizards.

it’s the other way around, near-gods are explained as wizards by the people around them that have no comprehension of what they really are.

As I said, Tolkien would make the case for there being no playable wizards

In any case, as I wrote earlier, your argument needs to stand on its own, not rely on examples in literature. You only brought those up because people asked you for some, so we can drop this whole line of reasoning

 

[Oofta]

They call him a Wizard because Tolkien calls him a Wizard, specifically.




If he is not called an Angel, then the argument he is an Angel is weak compared to the argument that he is a Wizard.

Further, I don't think this idea supports your argument at all. Gandalf is a Wizard. He is explicitly called a "Wizard" in the novels. If Wizard=Angel in Tolkein then a Wizard should clearly be more than a standard non-caster. If the game is to mimic tolkein, then this would be an argument for an even more lopsided game, not a more leveled one.

Finally as I mentioned earlier, it is not only Wizards in Tolkein. It is magic in general. Bilbo acoomplishes things because of magic, not because of his non-caster prowess. Bilbo used his ring, multiple times, to accomplish what a D&D Rogue can generally accomplish without magic. Here again the novels are more lopsided than the game in magic vs. non-magic.

Bottom line - If "Wizards" are near gods in the most popular fantasy series in history then games following that genre trope for Wizards should elevate wizards, way, way above other non-Wizards.

He is never called a maiar in The Hobbit or the LotR trilogy, you have to read the additional supplemental books about Tolkien's world building to find it out. In Tolkien's universe Gandalf is effectively an angel but you have to be pretty dedicated to the background lore of the books to know that. In other words, as far as the vast majority of people who have read the books are concerned he is a wizard although technically, according to Tolkien, he is more akin to an angel.

Spoiler: Ignore if you're triggered by an attempt at humor...

Personally I think Gandalf was just a charlatan with a good publicist and not magical at all. In the books he has a couple of flash bangs and manages to blow up one bridge and somehow survive. As far as we know he never actually fell with the Balrog and the entire story of how they battled for days is complete confabulation. But basically everything super awesome and special that he does is off screen and related by his own telling. Meanwhile he took credit for things he didn't actually do, like Merry and Pippin getting the help of the Ents. He basically drafted poor Bilbo into a scheme that should have been a total suicide mission. Remember how he kept talking about any moment he was going to open that can of whoop-ass in Helms Deep, and it was a really big can? Then never did much? Because other than some cool tricks it was hollow threats.

In other words, he was a representation of a real world politician.

 

[mamba]

Story reasons. If you want to build the most powerful party possible you would have all Wizards and Sorcerers in 5E. Other versions of the game you might want a cleric and Rogue/Thief too, but in 5E these classes are not necessary either..

so tradition more than story, unless you think of story as ‘recreating the stories older editions told’ rather than experiencing your own story.

This to me is the prime reason to buff meleers and take casters down a notch or two

There is almost no mechanical reason to ever have a fighter in any version of the game.

great reason to buff them, if you ask me

 

[ECMO3]

that is not my problem and does not fix that it is circular reasoning. If you want to make a case with 80s to 00s literature at all, do so with non-D&D literature.

Ok please explain to me how you can show that fantasy literature from "any era" (and those are the words used) does not can be discussed while excluding the majority of fantasy literature written over a specific 20 year span.

And whether you want to admit it or not D&D fantasy literature is as a point of fact fantasy literature and if it shows that it is not "obviously not generally true in any era of fantasy literature" if in fact it does show magic-users to be more powerful.

You need to pay attention to the exact wording that post was a response to instead of drawing your own conclusions without reading it.

Even then it could be argued that it was influenced by the popularity of D&D, but outright D&D novels can / must be dismissed entirely if you want to use literature as evidence for your case

I am not arguing that at all .... not anywhere in this thread. I am arguing that fantasy literature, which absolutely does factually an unequivocally include D&D novels, shows magic as superior to non-magic.

ok, so you have shown that it exists in popular literature starting in the 40s or whatever. Don’t think I ever argued against that point

Others have and that argument is thde EXACT reason I posted those references. Not to prop up my argument, but rather to refute the argument that it is not present in literature.

, the claim has to stand on its own in the context of a TTRPG rather than a book.

As my initial statement did and still does stand on its own.

 

[ECMO3]

so tradition more than story, unless you think of story as ‘recreating the stories older editions told’ rather than experiencing your own story.

No mechanics. Wizards are more powerful. They just are in the 5E game. If power is what you want, that is what you should build and it is all you should build.

This to me is the prime reason to buff meleers and take casters down a notch or two

I would say this is not a reason you should buff meleers. But even if this is the argument it is fundamentally not the same as buffing non-casters as in 5E meleer and non-caster are not the same thing and not even closely correlated.

There are only 3 non-caster classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue), only two of them are typically meleers, and even those classes have either caster subclasses (fighter) or highly magical subclasses (Both). Every other class is expclicitly a caster. You are down to very, very few builds if you want a non-magical build.

Now, to go back to your statement - if we buff "meleers" then logically that SHOULD include many Clerics, Sword Bards, Hexblades, Undead Bladelocks, Bladesingers, some Abjuration Wizards, most Druids, Barbarians and Paladins, some Artificers, Rangers, some Fighters and a few Rogues. The only class you would not buff are Sorcerers as I've not seen a single-class Sorc melee build.

In game I honestly don't actually see that many single-class melee fighter builds. If you add the single class melee Warlock and Wizard builds together you probably have more of those two combined than you have pure melee fighters. If you add Clerics I know you have more. I am talking strictly single-class builds here.

So giving a buff to "meleers" would presumably buff most of the classes or subclasses, including many that are already "overpowered", and if it doesn't do that then you really aren't buffing meleers but rather picking and choosing based on mechanics and not the character story you are trying to tell.

great reason to buff them, if you ask me

Not me.

 

[mamba]

Ok please explain to me how you can show that fantasy literature from "any era" (and those are the words used) does not can be discussed while excluding the majority of fantasy literature written over a specific 20 year span.

the problem is that you are using the very literature that was created by D&D to prove that the D&D tropes are supported by literature. If you do not understand how that is circular, then I cannot help you.

If that leaves you with less literature to fall back on, then so what, using it still is circular and therefore pointless / wrong.

You need to pay attention to the exact wording that post was a response to instead of drawing your own conclusions without reading it.

and you need to pay attention to circular reasoning if you want to make a valid point

As my initial statement did and still does stand on its own.

as I said, I did not dispute that

 

[Oofta]

No mechanics. Wizards are more powerful. They just are in the 5E game. If power is what you want, that is what you should build and it is all you should build.


I would say this is not a reason this indicates you should buff meleers. But even if this is the argument it is fuindamentally not the same as buffing non-casters as in 5E meleer and non-caster are not the same thing and not even closely correlated.

There are only 3 non-caster classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue), only two of them are typically meleers, and even those classes have either caster subclasses (fighter) or magic subclasses (Barbarian).

You are down to very, very few builds if you want a non-magical build.

Now, to go back to your statement - if we buff meleers then logically that would include many Clerics, Sword Bards, Hexblades, Bladesingers, some Abjuration Wizards, most Druids, Barbarians and Paladins, some artificers, Rangers, some fighters and a few Rogues.

So giving a buff to meleers would presumably buff all those builds, including many that are already "overpowered", and if it doesn't do that then you really aren't buffing meleers.


Not me.

Whether or not wizards are "more powerful" depends on level and campaign. Fighters are the tortoise to the rabbit's hare, slow and steady reliably dealing out damage and contributing to the success of the team. Wizards can go nova and it's quite helpful but in my experience it balances out unless you only ever have 1-2 combats per long rest. Even then, you can set up scenarios where the fighter contributes more. My current group is level 20 and in 1 combat the wizard got off a much-needed exceptional meteor storm. But for the other fights? The fighter was significantly more effective.

I can't say what happens at every table in every game, but one of the video games that uses D&D core rules is Solasta which goes up to level 12. One of the things you can do in Solasta is see how much damage every PC contributed and my fighter build almost always comes out on top. About the only time they didn't was when the wizard was given a wand of fireballs and hordes of low level monsters that handily grouped up in fireball formation. Wizards are almost always 2nd or 3rd in overall damage.

Outside of combat? Well if you're Batman and always know exactly what you'll need they can be great. But if you're just a normal person? It's hit of miss whether or not you have a spell appropriate to the current need and the spell slot available.