Fighter questions

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

I've been playing D&D since 2e and let me tell WotC something. I have never ran across a person whose first character is a fighter by choice (sometimes they were forced into it). I've seen time and again where the new person picks the more interesting option (cleric or wizard types) over that of the fighter.

And since the Fighter plays completely different than casters, why is it the goal to let people learn on the weaker and less versatile class. Won't they still be overwealmed when they level up to the big leagues? (Casters). Heck, doesn't it stand to reason that if you give the new person something bland they will get a negative impression of your product and stop using it? What if Pepsi, in order to get new customers, watered down their pop and gave it to people to taste test... I know I wouldn:'t come back to pepsi

How about we stop this nonsense and give interesting and useful things to the fighter? Expertise dice is a fantastic idea that has huge potential. I know this is a scary thought but pandering to the lowest common denominator never tends to work out.

I also would like to know why Fighters (and other mundanes) are stuck in low fantasy levels of play from level 1 to 20 when casters get to play in high fantasy. What is WotC afraid of? Why can't we allow the mundanes to walk with the big kids? D&D is a fantasy game and yet mundanes are, for the most part, limited to what people could possibly do in real life. I say bull crap, I don't want to play a fantasy game when to actually be a fantasy character I have to play a caster.

Give me extraordinary or give me nothing. Don't waste time on this same stuff that is already out there. I might as well just cut out all the mundanes because they give me nothing i cant do with a caster. Be bold, be daring, and be innovating. So far from what I've seen WotC is a quiet little 1/4 HD mouse that doesn't want to become the giant it once was or the giant that we want.

Rise up or forever be lost in the shadows of your competition.

     

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

kill_the_wiz_first wrote:

Just do stuff extraordinary then you don't have to worry about a rule that lets you do something extraordinary.

When the rules don't allow you to be extraordinary then you can't. Why? Because DM's don't like you making up rules as you go.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a simple fighter. It's just that every other class has even more to keep track of, such that the fighter seems relatively simple in comparison.

The metagame is not the game.

     

 

I just said something and you just read it. Sorry about that.

kill_the_wiz_first wrote:

Do not try and bend the rules. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize what you want your character to do.
There are no rules.
Then you'll see, that it is not the rules that bend, it is only your character.

 

There is no spoon . . . only Zuul.

 

 

I think I got my wires crossed.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

kill_the_wiz_first wrote:

 

MechaPilot wrote:

 

kill_the_wiz_first wrote:

Do not try and bend the rules. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize what you want your character to do.
There are no rules.
Then you'll see, that it is not the rules that bend, it is only your character.

 

 

There is no spoon . . . only Zuul.

 

 

I think I got my wires crossed.

 

 

 

Huzzah! I was starting to get worried the nerds were beginning to outweight the geeks here, on these boards.

 

I'm not a geek.  I'm a neek.  Half nerd, half geek.  I'm my own best friend.

 

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Jeez, that's a question.

 

I think part of the reason why fighters get stuck as the "simple class" is traditon/nostalgia.  Looking at 3.x, fighters just hit stuff, wizards and clerics had their spell lists, barbarians had rages to handle, rogues had sneak attack so they had to deal with flanking in combat...fighters were really the "I hit the monsta" class.  From what I read on other forums, in AD&D/BECMI fighters were still the punchers of people, but they got perks along the way, like getting a castle and an army of goombas.  That got dropped in 3rd edition.

 

Another reason, and what I believe is a biggie, is the whole geek/nerd thing.  That being, we (as nerds/geeks/etc) believe ourselves to be smart people, smarter than the average person, and especially smarter than the dumb jocks from high school.  So, naturally we smart people must obviously be casters, for it's only natural that our smartness leads us to the magical forces that change the entire world, nay, the universe!  And the dumb jocks are obviously fighters, who are stupid meatheads who hit things with sticks.  Neener neener, I am better than you in our games, Jocky McJockerson.

 

Some people on the forums have stated they play fighters, and like them to be simple, for reasons (such as "without extra rules, I can focus on roleplay and immerson" and "hey, I just get together with friends when they play, I just wanna hit stuff and joke with my buddies.")  And that's okay.  The problem comes up when people like that believe, since they like simple fighters, EVERYONE must like simple fighters, or they want simple fighters to flip the metophorical bird at people who want tactical complex fighters.  "My simple fighter is canon, your complex fighter isn't!  That means my way of playing is the ONETRUEWAY of playing, and you're BADWRONGFUN!  Neener neener, my way's the best, either learn to love it or leave my hobby, you badwrongfunhaver you!" 

 

Partly tradition/nostalgia, partly passive-aggressive edition warring.

The perception that new players want simple needs to DIAF.  New players want cool or they won't become old players.

Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.

MechaPilot wrote:

 

kill_the_wiz_first wrote:

Do not try and bend the rules. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize what you want your character to do.
There are no rules.
Then you'll see, that it is not the rules that bend, it is only your character.

 

 

There is no spoon . . . only Zuul.

 

 

I think I got my wires crossed.

 

It's okay as long as you don't cross the streams. That would be bad.

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

I've been playing D&D since 2e and let me tell WotC something. I have never ran across a person whose first character is a fighter by choice (sometimes they were forced into it). I've seen time and again where the new person picks the more interesting option (cleric or wizard types) over that of the fighter.

And since the Fighter plays completely different than casters, why is it the goal to let people learn on the weaker and less versatile class. Won't they still be overwealmed when they level up to the big leagues? (Casters). Heck, doesn't it stand to reason that if you give the new person something bland they will get a negative impression of your product and stop using it? What if Pepsi, in order to get new customers, watered down their pop and gave it to people to taste test... I know I wouldn:'t come back to pepsi

How about we stop this nonsense and give interesting and useful things to the fighter? Expertise dice is a fantastic idea that has huge potential. I know this is a scary thought but pandering to the lowest common denominator never tends to work out.

I also would like to know why Fighters (and other mundanes) are stuck in low fantasy levels of play from level 1 to 20 when casters get to play in high fantasy. What is WotC afraid of? Why can't we allow the mundanes to walk with the big kids? D&D is a fantasy game and yet mundanes are, for the most part, limited to what people could possibly do in real life. I say bull crap, I don't want to play a fantasy game when to actually be a fantasy character I have to play a caster.

Give me extraordinary or give me nothing. Don't waste time on this same stuff that is already out there. I might as well just cut out all the mundanes because they give me nothing i cant do with a caster. Be bold, be daring, and be innovating. So far from what I've seen WotC is a quiet little 1/4 HD mouse that doesn't want to become the giant it once was or the giant that we want.

Rise up or forever be lost in the shadows of your competition.

 

I feel you. Personally, I don't mind if there's a simple Fighter subclass—just as long as there are other Fighter subclasses that have more options and can be built up to be extraordinary, like legendary warriors like Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Heracles, CuChulain, etc.

 

Since 2e, the game has tried to give the Fighter more to do than "roll to hit, roll to damage" to varying degrees of success. This needs to crystalize in Next, too, in a viable and fun way.

You can't see the appeal?  Fighters "need" to make a straightforward contribution, and no D&D character (even at 1st level) was ever a mundane.  It sounds like you want some extra, superhero like abilities.  They are too unrealistic to be the rule, but they could be the exception.  Lots of different people can play the game their way, but the fighter needs to be strictly consistent with tradition as well.

Because a lot of people want a "hazing" for newbies into D&D. They play the simple class with few options while the experienced players play the complex class with lots of options. If a new player wants to be a wizard without knowing how to work around its weaknesses, they get killed off until they go back to the pee-wees class. Obviously, I'm not a fan.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

Azzy1974 wrote:
 

 

I feel you. Personally, I don't mind if there's a simple Fighter subclass—just as long as there are other Fighter subclasses that have more options and can be built up to be extraordinary, like legendary warriors like Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Heracles, CuChulain, etc.

 

 

And not to mention all the Warlord like characters that were on the 2e PHB list of inspirational fighters....

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

 

And it always begs the question why we cannot have a simple and easy to use magic using class so that new players can learn quickly.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Alter_Boy wrote:
Because a lot of people want a "hazing" for newbies into D&D.

 

Thankfully, none of the groups I've played with have been like that.

Shasarak wrote:

 

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

 

 

And it always begs the question why we cannot have a simple and easy to use magic using class so that new players can learn quickly.

 

D*** Straight!  If 'Simplicity' is the keyword and goal for 5E, then it should be applied across the board!  Core, or what I originally took to mean 'Basic', should be simple Martial and Caster classes.  

Simple Solution...

 

Adrenaline Rush (Level 3 "Path of the Hero" feature)

When you take damage from an enemy attack you may spend your reaction to trigger an adrenaline rush that lasts until the end of that enemy's next turn. While you are experiencing an adrenaline rush, your Strength score is doubled for the purposes of Strength checks and Strength-based damage rolls, and you gain damage reduction equal to your Constitution modifier + your Fighter level. Once you use this feature, you may not experience an adrenaline rush again until you have rested.

Supreme Athleticism (Level 6)

You may forgo gaining an ability score improvement or feat in exchange for the following ability.

 

Your battles have improved your strength and agility to superhuman levels, allowing you to perform feats of athletics that would be impossible for any mortal man. When you make an Athletics check to run, jump, climb, swim, or perform other feats of athletic prowess, you may double your Strength modifier for the purposes of that check.

Legendary Weapon (Level 7 "Path of the Hero" feature)

Choose one weapon you are proficient with. That weapon becomes a +1 magic weapon with the gleaming and unbreakable properties as long as you wield it, but does not function as such for any other creature. You may also choose to make the weapon count as cold iron, silver, or adamantine for the purposes of overcoming damage resistance (choose one). You may add further enchantments to the weapon at a later date if you desire, subject to the normal rules for enchanting items. This weapon does not count against your number of attuned magic items.

 

Champion of Men (Level 10 "Path of the Hero" feature)

Your Charisma modifier is doubled (max +5) for the purposes of interacting with NPCs, and you gain advantage on Charisma (Diplomacy) and Charisma (Intimidate) checks. In addition, once per day you may deliver a stirring speech as an action before or during a battle. For the duration of that battle, or until your hit point total drops to 50% of your maximum or less, each friendly creature who could see and hear you during the speech has a +2 bonus to all d20 rolls.

Imperishable Will (Level 14)

You may forgo gaining an ability score improvement or feat in exchange for the following ability.

 

Your grit and determination allows you to call upon a well of inner strength which causes the flame of your soul to flare when the world around you is darkest. When you succeed on the Constitution save granted by your Defy Death feature, you gain temporary hit points equal to 1/4 your maximum hit points and all debilitating conditions immediately end on you. As long as you have temporary hit points remaining, your attacks with a weapon deal maximum damage on a hit.

 

Superheroic Strength (Level 15 "Path of the Hero" feature)

When you are experiencing an Adrenaline Rush, your Strength modifier is tripled instead of doubled for the purposes of Strength checks, Strength-based damage rolls, and your Supreme Athleticism feature. In addition, you may now trigger an Adrenaline Rush as a swift action on your turn. If you do so, the effect lasts until the end of your next turn.

Vorpal Slayer (Level 18)

You may forgo gaining an ability score improvement or feat in exchange for the following ability.

 

When you score a critical hit with a weapon, you may make an additional attack roll. If this attack roll would hit the target's AC, the target is immediately vanquished.

Undying Champion (Level 19 "Path of the Hero feature")

You have reached the pinnacle of bodily might and martial perfection. You suffer no effects from aging, can hold your breath for up to 10 minutes, can walk, run, climb, or swim almost indefinitely without suffering any effects from fatigue so long as you are not seriously wounded. Finally, as a swift action you may expend a hit die (without regaining hit points) to automatically succeed on any saving throw to resist a debilitating effect, so long as your hit point total is above 50% of your maximum.

 

LupusRegalis wrote:

 

Shasarak wrote:

 

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

 

 

And it always begs the question why we cannot have a simple and easy to use magic using class so that new players can learn quickly.

 

 

D*** Straight!  If 'Simplicity' is the keyword and goal for 5E, then it should be applied across the board!  Core, or what I originally took to mean 'Basic', should be simple Martial and Caster classes.  

 

It just seems like no designer wants to be the one who gets their name associated with a simple magic class, although the Sourcerer was at least a half-hearted attempt.

 

Maybe the maneuver dice idea could work, or perhaps playing around with the damage dice to change effect?

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Total disagreement.

 

I think I'd rather see the spellcasters brought down to Earth a bit more.  

 

Let's eliminate some of the more off-the-wall crazy spells that allow casters to break the rules too much.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

I've been playing D&D since 2e and let me tell WotC something. I have never ran across a person whose first character is a fighter by choice (sometimes they were forced into it). I've seen time and again where the new person picks the more interesting option (cleric or wizard types) over that of the fighter.

I have a player right now who took human fighter because they wanted to see a game where the fighter can shine.   In fact, they -like- playing fighters, they just hate how that they usually end up sucking and lagging behind everyone else.   Experienced players here, as well.

 

 

 

I honestly believe at this point that the dumbed down fighter is really more of a tradition thing than anything.    People have an idea of what a "Fighter Class" is in their mind.    And they want the new one to appear like it.   Does that mean have an empty chasis onto which you tack on feats?   Or something else?   Who knows?   However, people love throwing labels on things, and calling it "simple" sounds politically correct  and more likely to earn sympathy than a more agressive term.

 

 

I also would like to know why Fighters (and other mundanes) are stuck in low fantasy levels of play from level 1 to 20 when casters get to play in high fantasy. What is WotC afraid of?
Actually, its not WotC in this case.   I actually point to Lord of the Rings and similiar fantasy genre.   

 

You see, magic can do anything.    If you use magic with hard rules like most of Brandon Sanderson's works, or a more fluid version with less rules, it matters not.  The point is that you can do extrodinary crazy stuff beyond the ken of mere mortals.   Its like dropping a house filled with modern information technology, conviences, weapons, and food (including grocery store access, don't ask how) in the middle of a tribe still using bone weapons and tools to hunt and scavange for food.     Except that, unlike technology, magic has a hard time being shared with the masses - it tends to empower individuals.  

 

That is why.   Fighters are mundane beings who are restricted to mundane methods of fighting, generally without the help of "technology" ie magic.   Compare to creatures who have superhuman powers and abilities- of course the mundane won't last.   No, you need a beyond human powers (magic) to face another superhuman being.

 

Its so engrained in fantasy literature of all kinds.   Not D&D's fault, or WotC's fault, at all.      

 

 

I really think the key is to give the Fighter magical equipment.    If magic is the science of a fantasy setting, then giving a fighter magic boots and swords is like giving modern soldiers guns and heli transports. 

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

I've been playing D&D since 2e and let me tell WotC something. I have never ran across a person whose first character is a fighter by choice (sometimes they were forced into it). I've seen time and again where the new person picks the more interesting option (cleric or wizard types) over that of the fighter.

And since the Fighter plays completely different than casters, why is it the goal to let people learn on the weaker and less versatile class. Won't they still be overwealmed when they level up to the big leagues? (Casters). Heck, doesn't it stand to reason that if you give the new person something bland they will get a negative impression of your product and stop using it? What if Pepsi, in order to get new customers, watered down their pop and gave it to people to taste test... I know I wouldn:'t come back to pepsi

How about we stop this nonsense and give interesting and useful things to the fighter? Expertise dice is a fantastic idea that has huge potential. I know this is a scary thought but pandering to the lowest common denominator never tends to work out.

I also would like to know why Fighters (and other mundanes) are stuck in low fantasy levels of play from level 1 to 20 when casters get to play in high fantasy. What is WotC afraid of? Why can't we allow the mundanes to walk with the big kids? D&D is a fantasy game and yet mundanes are, for the most part, limited to what people could possibly do in real life. I say bull crap, I don't want to play a fantasy game when to actually be a fantasy character I have to play a caster.

Give me extraordinary or give me nothing. Don't waste time on this same stuff that is already out there. I might as well just cut out all the mundanes because they give me nothing i cant do with a caster. Be bold, be daring, and be innovating. So far from what I've seen WotC is a quiet little 1/4 HD mouse that doesn't want to become the giant it once was or the giant that we want.

Rise up or forever be lost in the shadows of your competition.

 

It's not that I disagree with you.  I don't.  In my experience, people don't pick their first class because of simplicity; they choose it because it looks cool, or because it sounds like it will fit a concept or archetype they have in mind.  Of course, sometimes they're wrong.  In editions prior to 4e, I've had no less than two players halfway write up caster characters only to abandon them after they learned that they can run out of magical things to do.

 

That being said, I think the answer lies not in integrating maneuvers into the fighter class but in an optional maneuvers system that can be layered on top of the existing classes.  The way it would work is the character seeks out a mentor and spends in-game time and money to learn a maneuver.  The maneuvers would have different resource models so that you could either pick the one you like the best or pick them from a mix of resource models.  They would be AEDU, triggered effects, fatigue point based, and combo point based.

 

In my opinion, that's the best way to implement the maneuver system.  Hopefully, we'll get something like that.  If not, hopefully the license will be loose enough that we'll either get it through 3rd party support.  Or, maybe I'll even write it.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

On another forum, someone pointed out that one of D&D's themes/memes/"traditions" is that "anything supernatural must is magic".  Like, if you port over some mythological monster or figure from forklore, their abilities, being supernatural, would be converted into magical spells.  And since it's a spell, a wizard can learn it. 

 

So, if a fighter lures a bear out of it's cave, then by that logic he must have used magic to lure the bear out, because no mere man could do that and fighter's don't have "animal handling" as a skill or class feature.  So logicaly he must have really been a ranger using a spell.

 

Because "anything supernatural must be magic", you begin to see what happens when classes are defined by does/does not magic, so from there, you understand why fighters can't have nice things.  Because obviously any nice thing a fighter can do must be magic, and fighters can't do magic. 

 

Then you get the whole "if out-of-shape nerds can't do it, it's not physically possible" stupid vibe.

 

And that is the central irony of D&D magic.  Magic is allowed to be mysterious, but everything else has to be "realistic".  And of course, your view of what is "realistic" is going to be different from mine, or hers, or...

 

So when one person believes a figher is some random dirt-farmer who picked up a sword one day meets someone who believes a fighter is a highly trained asskicker capabile of incredible feats like this:

 

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/GzyDbVu.jpg)

 

...there's going to be a disconnect.

 

+1, Bud_the_CHUD

SirAntoine wrote:

You can't see the appeal?  Fighters "need" to make a straightforward contribution, and no D&D character (even at 1st level) was ever a mundane.  It sounds like you want some extra, superhero like abilities.  They are too unrealistic to be the rule, but they could be the exception.  Lots of different people can play the game their way, but the fighter needs to be strictly consistent with tradition as well.

 

I don't think fighters "need" to make a straightforward contribution anymore than wizards "need" to be built around resource management.  It's just a convention.  Personally, I think when the experience is highly stratified it hurts "play at the table", and the game is more enjoyable, easier to play, and easier to run (in other words: "better") when there is a blurring of the lines.  For example, I think it is a "good thing" that wizards have at-will spells (that are very minor in effect), even though at-will attacks are a "fighter thing".  Similarly, I think the game is better when fighters have some sort of limited use effect/ability that they (or their players) can draw upon to break up monotony and add some dynamism to the play experience.

 

This doesn't mean I want fighters teleporting or hurling fireballs across the room (sans magic items, of course).  I just want players to have the agency to say (during character creation) "my fighter specializes in deft strikes, to differentiate him from my last fighter who was a big brutal badass", and I want fighters to have the agency to say (during play) "Hmm...should I try and knock this guy down with a strong attack, or should I try and harass all the guys around me?", and in both cases have the mechanics to back up those statements/decisions.

 

What also needs to be considered is a sense of narrative scale.  The fighter is often portrayed as a gritty, mundane warrior, who fights at the peak of human ability but is absolutely constrained by human limitations.  And understandably so!  Examples of mundane warriors in extraordinary circumstances abound in fiction.  Magic, almost by definition, has no such limitations.  So it is not surprising that, when modeling inspirational fiction with mechanics, magical classes have typically far outstripped the more mundane classes in both power, effectiveness, breadth, and depth of abilities and options.

 

But stories that feature mundane or limited heroes tend to be in settings where "magic" is rare or intensely limited itself, as "D&D magic" as we know it would negatively skew the setting, rendering the world and/or the conflict unbelievable.  Stories that feature magical heroes tend to have settings were even the "mundane" heroes are effectively magical (Beowulf, Cuchulain, Elric) or where magical users are explicitly more powerful, rendering mundanes effectively moot.  None of these are bad or inferior settings to another: they are simply different, and demand different dynamics and experiences.

 

D&D has historically tried to have it's cake and eat it too by smashing these different dynamics together.  It hasn't always worked out so well.

 

What needs to happen is a reappropriation of scale.  We can have all these types in one game, and the tiers are important.  Low tier play should have fighters as we have typically known them, but wizards should be much more limited in scope than they typically have been.  Simply reducing the number of spells is a poor option, as it just creates spikes of power, followed by trenches of little power, which in turn risks the 5 minute work day, and other problematic table experiences.  Far better is to reduce the scope of what magic can actually accomplish.

 

High tier play can re-instate the wizards we have come to love, but in turn the fighters should resemble the fighters of myth and legend.  The Gilgameshes, the Beowulfs, etc.

 

I'd go further and say that tier shouldn't be tied to level, and should actually be a seperate metric established at campaign start (kinda like how point-based systems can scale up the game simply by providing more points at character creation).  Level would measure depth of experience.  A high level low tier character might have a vast collection of "small" abilities.  A master swordsman, or an experienced magician.  A low-level high tier character would have only a few "big" abilities.  A rookie super-hero.

 

But that's another discussion entirely, and at this point probably beyond what will be attempted with 5e/DDN.  At this point I'd be fine if low level wizards looked like Dresden, and high level fighters looked like Cuchulain or Beowulf.

Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.

Bud_the_CHUD wrote:

So when one person believes a figher is some random dirt-farmer who picked up a sword one day meets someone who believes a fighter is a highly trained asskicker capabile of incredible feats like this:

 

//i.imgur.com/GzyDbVu.jpg)

 

...there's going to be a disconnect.

 

 

So is that supposed to be a 1st level Spetsnaz?  Because I imagine that he may have originally been a Siberian Ice Farmer on the first day that he picked up his Hatchet.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

You mad bro? You can't see the genius of simplicity so you put down those that do? You want Next to be complex and since they haven't shown you that it's gonna suck? Really, 4e exists and Next will add that level of complexity for those that crave it. You guys are so blind, its sad. Can't accept HP is DR. Its all there, the tactical complexity is there! But it's not done how you think it should be so rather than learn the language of Next you cry at the top of interwebz mountain (or molehill as it were). Open your eyes!

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Foxface wrote:

 

SirAntoine wrote:

You can't see the appeal?  Fighters "need" to make a straightforward contribution, and no D&D character (even at 1st level) was ever a mundane.  It sounds like you want some extra, superhero like abilities.  They are too unrealistic to be the rule, but they could be the exception.  Lots of different people can play the game their way, but the fighter needs to be strictly consistent with tradition as well.

 

 

I don't think fighters "need" to make a straightforward contribution anymore than wizards "need" to be built around resource management.  It's just a convention.  Personally, I think when the experience is highly stratified it hurts "play at the table", and the game is more enjoyable, easier to play, and easier to run (in other words: "better") when there is a blurring of the lines.  For example, I think it is a "good thing" that wizards have at-will spells (that are very minor in effect), even though at-will attacks are a "fighter thing".  Similarly, I think the game is better when fighters have some sort of limited use effect/ability that they (or their players) can draw upon to break up monotony and add some dynamism to the play experience.

 

This doesn't mean I want fighters teleporting or hurling fireballs across the room (sans magic items, of course).  I just want players to have the agency to say (during character creation) "my fighter specializes in deft strikes, to differentiate him from my last fighter who was a big brutal badass", and I want fighters to have the agency to say (during play) "Hmm...should I try and knock this guy down with a strong attack, or should I try and harass all the guys around me?", and in both cases have the mechanics to back up those statements/decisions.

 

What also needs to be considered is a sense of narrative scale.  The fighter is often portrayed as a gritty, mundane warrior, who fights at the peak of human ability but is absolutely constrained by human limitations.  And understandably so!  Examples of mundane warriors in extraordinary circumstances abound in fiction.  Magic, almost by definition, has no such limitations.  So it is not surprising that, when modeling inspirational fiction with mechanics, magical classes have typically far outstripped the more mundane classes in both power, effectiveness, breadth, and depth of abilities and options.

 

But stories that feature mundane or limited heroes tend to be in settings where "magic" is rare or intensely limited itself, as "D&D magic" as we know it would negatively skew the setting, rendering the world and/or the conflict unbelievable.  Stories that feature magical heroes tend to have settings were even the "mundane" heroes are effectively magical (Beowulf, Cuchulain, Elric) or where magical users are explicitly more powerful, rendering mundanes effectively moot.  None of these are bad or inferior settings to another: they are simply different, and demand different dynamics and experiences.

 

D&D has historically tried to have it's cake and eat it too by smashing these different dynamics together.  It hasn't always worked out so well.

 

What needs to happen is a reappropriation of scale.  We can have all these types in one game, and the tiers are important.  Low tier play should have fighters as we have typically known them, but wizards should be much more limited in scope than they typically have been.  Simply reducing the number of spells is a poor option, as it just creates spikes of power, followed by trenches of little power, which in turn risks the 5 minute work day, and other problematic table experiences.  Far better is to reduce the scope of what magic can actually accomplish.

 

High tier play can re-instate the wizards we have come to love, but in turn the fighters should resemble the fighters of myth and legend.  The Gilgameshes, the Beowulfs, etc.

 

I'd go further and say that tier shouldn't be tied to level, and should actually be a seperate metric established at campaign start (kinda like how point-based systems can scale up the game simply by providing more points at character creation).  Level would measure depth of experience.  A high level low tier character might have a vast collection of "small" abilities.  A master swordsman, or an experienced magician.  A low-level high tier character would have only a few "big" abilities.  A rookie super-hero.

 

But that's another discussion entirely, and at this point probably beyond what will be attempted with 5e/DDN.  At this point I'd be fine if low level wizards looked like Dresden, and high level fighters looked like Cuchulain or Beowulf.

 

Foxface, you are a model of Eloquence!  Your Level/Tier dynamics is a great idea that I'd love to see fleshed out.  Hope you don't mind if I use that for my own games.

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

 

 

Mike Mearls.

 

Mike Mearls is the reason. He's shown pretty consistently that he wants a simple fighter. Remember the first playtest package, and the godawful, boring fighter? That's what Mearls originally had in mind. Frightening, yes. Only massive backlash forced him to reconsider.

 

In short, the simple fighter is a design choice made by Mearls. It is part of the 'Forget everything about 4e' philosophy he has adopted for Next. He has been dragged kicking and screaming to adopt some 4e stuff more recently, but it is clearly against his current design philosophy (yes, I know he was involved in 4e, but I mean his new, 'everything about 4e must go' philosophy for Next).

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

Hurin88 wrote:

 

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

 

 

 

Mike Mearls.

 

Mike Mearls is the reason. He's shown pretty consistently that he wants a simple fighter. Remember the first playtest package, and the godawful, boring fighter? That's what Mearls originally had in mind. Frightening, yes. Only massive backlash forced him to reconsider.

 

In short, the simple fighter is a design choice made by Mearls. It is part of the 'Forget everything about 4e' philosophy he has adopted for Next. He has been dragged kicking and screaming to adopt some 4e stuff more recently, but it is clearly against his current design philosophy (yes, I know he was involved in 4e, but I mean his new, 'everything about 4e must go' philosophy for Next).

The funniest part for me was how he had to eb dragged kicking and screaming into giving the Fighter actual options, then near the end of the playtest insisted the fans didn't want fighter complexity.

Bud_the_CHUD wrote:
 

So when one person believes a figher is some random dirt-farmer who picked up a sword one day meets someone who believes a fighter is a highly trained asskicker capabile of incredible feats like this:

 

//i.imgur.com/GzyDbVu.jpg)

 

...there's going to be a disconnect.

 

That so looks like a Salmon Leap (CuCulaine)  - The Romans described celts leaping  over the battle lines... and the Celts themselves described heroic feats including running on enemy spears and the most famous was called the Salmon Leap

We actually know less about what techniques were used or viable than we think (only in the last dozen or so years discovered how elaborate knightly fighting styles were) and until recently feats of archery which were thought myth by modern archers but were reported in the crusades and later in the Americas couldnt be duplicated (but now have been).

 

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Garthanos wrote:

 

Bud_the_CHUD wrote:
 

So when one person believes a figher is some random dirt-farmer who picked up a sword one day meets someone who believes a fighter is a highly trained asskicker capabile of incredible feats like this:

 

//i.imgur.com/GzyDbVu.jpg)

 

...there's going to be a disconnect.

 

 

That so looks like a Salmon Leap (CuCulaine)  - The Romans described celts leaping  over the battle lines... and the Celts themselves described heroic feats including running on enemy spears and the most famous was called the Salmon Leap

We actually know less about what techniques were used or viable than we think (only in the last dozen or so years discovered how elaborate knightly fighting styles were) and until recently feats of archery which were thought myth but were reported in the crusades and later in the Americas couldnt be duplicated (but now have).

 

If you don't mind, could you please PM some details (or, even bertter, links to pages with details so I can destroy a full day or two readong)?

Foxface wrote:

 

SirAntoine wrote:

You can't see the appeal?  Fighters "need" to make a straightforward contribution, and no D&D character (even at 1st level) was ever a mundane.  It sounds like you want some extra, superhero like abilities.  They are too unrealistic to be the rule, but they could be the exception.  Lots of different people can play the game their way, but the fighter needs to be strictly consistent with tradition as well.

 

 

I don't think fighters "need" to make a straightforward contribution anymore than wizards "need" to be built around resource management.  It's just a convention.  Personally, I think when the experience is highly stratified it hurts "play at the table", and the game is more enjoyable, easier to play, and easier to run (in other words: "better") when there is a blurring of the lines.  For example, I think it is a "good thing" that wizards have at-will spells (that are very minor in effect), even though at-will attacks are a "fighter thing".  Similarly, I think the game is better when fighters have some sort of limited use effect/ability that they (or their players) can draw upon to break up monotony and add some dynamism to the play experience.

 

This doesn't mean I want fighters teleporting or hurling fireballs across the room (sans magic items, of course).  I just want players to have the agency to say (during character creation) "my fighter specializes in deft strikes, to differentiate him from my last fighter who was a big brutal badass", and I want fighters to have the agency to say (during play) "Hmm...should I try and knock this guy down with a strong attack, or should I try and harass all the guys around me?", and in both cases have the mechanics to back up those statements/decisions.

 

What also needs to be considered is a sense of narrative scale.  The fighter is often portrayed as a gritty, mundane warrior, who fights at the peak of human ability but is absolutely constrained by human limitations.  And understandably so!  Examples of mundane warriors in extraordinary circumstances abound in fiction.  Magic, almost by definition, has no such limitations.  So it is not surprising that, when modeling inspirational fiction with mechanics, magical classes have typically far outstripped the more mundane classes in both power, effectiveness, breadth, and depth of abilities and options.

 

But stories that feature mundane or limited heroes tend to be in settings where "magic" is rare or intensely limited itself, as "D&D magic" as we know it would negatively skew the setting, rendering the world and/or the conflict unbelievable.  Stories that feature magical heroes tend to have settings were even the "mundane" heroes are effectively magical (Beowulf, Cuchulain, Elric) or where magical users are explicitly more powerful, rendering mundanes effectively moot.  None of these are bad or inferior settings to another: they are simply different, and demand different dynamics and experiences.

 

D&D has historically tried to have it's cake and eat it too by smashing these different dynamics together.  It hasn't always worked out so well.

 

What needs to happen is a reappropriation of scale.  We can have all these types in one game, and the tiers are important.  Low tier play should have fighters as we have typically known them, but wizards should be much more limited in scope than they typically have been.  Simply reducing the number of spells is a poor option, as it just creates spikes of power, followed by trenches of little power, which in turn risks the 5 minute work day, and other problematic table experiences.  Far better is to reduce the scope of what magic can actually accomplish.

 

High tier play can re-instate the wizards we have come to love, but in turn the fighters should resemble the fighters of myth and legend.  The Gilgameshes, the Beowulfs, etc.

 

I'd go further and say that tier shouldn't be tied to level, and should actually be a seperate metric established at campaign start (kinda like how point-based systems can scale up the game simply by providing more points at character creation).  Level would measure depth of experience.  A high level low tier character might have a vast collection of "small" abilities.  A master swordsman, or an experienced magician.  A low-level high tier character would have only a few "big" abilities.  A rookie super-hero.

 

But that's another discussion entirely, and at this point probably beyond what will be attempted with 5e/DDN.  At this point I'd be fine if low level wizards looked like Dresden, and high level fighters looked like Cuchulain or Beowulf.

 

I think the designers should take a look at your suggestions.  They are well worded, and intelligent.  In fact, I have seldom seen such a fine summary, with so many profitable ideas, in such a small space.

 

I think that the "base attack" needs to have all the bang for its buck that it deserves, if I could use this slang.  In my home system, for example, my players have always enjoyed multiple options for how they fight, but the base attack also delivered.  Variety itself, does not mean more or less bang for the buck, or more or less power.  So a more complex system doesn't need to make a strictly simple fighter subclass which more or less just uses attack, any less powerful.  So long as that simplest fighter can be played as effectively, everything will be fine.  The option needs to be there as a matter of taste, and continuity for one of the most fundamental tones of the game.  The fighter also needs to serve as a benchmark, by which other classes and particularly monsters are scaled.  The day that base attack, or "just roll to hit, then roll damage", loses its great appeal, would be very sad for D&D, and the base attack of the fighter needs to be compared to for monsters and other classes' abilities.

Azzy1974 wrote:

 

Garthanos wrote:

 

Bud_the_CHUD wrote:
 

So when one person believes a figher is some random dirt-farmer who picked up a sword one day meets someone who believes a fighter is a highly trained asskicker capabile of incredible feats like this:

 

//i.imgur.com/GzyDbVu.jpg)

 

...there's going to be a disconnect.

 

 

That so looks like a Salmon Leap (CuCulaine)  - The Romans described celts leaping  over the battle lines... and the Celts themselves described heroic feats including running on enemy spears and the most famous was called the Salmon Leap

We actually know less about what techniques were used or viable than we think (only in the last dozen or so years discovered how elaborate knightly fighting styles were) and until recently feats of archery which were thought myth but were reported in the crusades and later in the Americas couldnt be duplicated (but now have).

 

If you don't mind, could you please PM some details (or, even bertter, links to pages with details so I can destroy a full day or two readong)?

Will see what I can do.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Mephi1234 wrote:

 

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

I've been playing D&D since 2e and let me tell WotC something. I have never ran across a person whose first character is a fighter by choice (sometimes they were forced into it). I've seen time and again where the new person picks the more interesting option (cleric or wizard types) over that of the fighter.

I have a player right now who took human fighter because they wanted to see a game where the fighter can shine.   In fact, they -like- playing fighters, they just hate how that they usually end up sucking and lagging behind everyone else.   Experienced players here, as well.

 

 

 

I honestly believe at this point that the dumbed down fighter is really more of a tradition thing than anything.    People have an idea of what a "Fighter Class" is in their mind.    And they want the new one to appear like it.   Does that mean have an empty chasis onto which you tack on feats?   Or something else?   Who knows?   However, people love throwing labels on things, and calling it "simple" sounds politically correct  and more likely to earn sympathy than a more agressive term.

 

 

 

I also would like to know why Fighters (and other mundanes) are stuck in low fantasy levels of play from level 1 to 20 when casters get to play in high fantasy. What is WotC afraid of?

Actually, its not WotC in this case.   I actually point to Lord of the Rings and similiar fantasy genre.   

 

 

You see, magic can do anything.    If you use magic with hard rules like most of Brandon Sanderson's works, or a more fluid version with less rules, it matters not.  The point is that you can do extrodinary crazy stuff beyond the ken of mere mortals.   Its like dropping a house filled with modern information technology, conviences, weapons, and food (including grocery store access, don't ask how) in the middle of a tribe still using bone weapons and tools to hunt and scavange for food.     Except that, unlike technology, magic has a hard time being shared with the masses - it tends to empower individuals.  

 

That is why.   Fighters are mundane beings who are restricted to mundane methods of fighting, generally without the help of "technology" ie magic.   Compare to creatures who have superhuman powers and abilities- of course the mundane won't last.   No, you need a beyond human powers (magic) to face another superhuman being.

 

Its so engrained in fantasy literature of all kinds.   Not D&D's fault, or WotC's fault, at all.    

 

 

I really think the key is to give the Fighter magical equipment.    If magic is the science of a fantasy setting, then giving a fighter magic boots and swords is like giving modern soldiers guns and heli transports.

 

Very well written.  +1

Hurin88 wrote:

 

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

 

 

 

Mike Mearls.

 

Mike Mearls is the reason. He's shown pretty consistently that he wants a simple fighter. Remember the first playtest package, and the godawful, boring fighter? That's what Mearls originally had in mind. Frightening, yes. Only massive backlash forced him to reconsider.

 

In short, the simple fighter is a design choice made by Mearls. It is part of the 'Forget everything about 4e' philosophy he has adopted for Next. He has been dragged kicking and screaming to adopt some 4e stuff more recently, but it is clearly against his current design philosophy (yes, I know he was involved in 4e, but I mean his new, 'everything about 4e must go' philosophy for Next).

 

Someone on RPG.net found this old LiveJournal of Mearls, and this post is like a 180 from Mearl's current L&Ls.  Wondered what happened?

Bud_the_CHUD wrote:

 

Hurin88 wrote:

 

TopCheese wrote:

Why is it that whenever the Fighter is talked about, someone always brings up "oh they should be simple and easy to use so that new players can learn quickly".

 

 

 

Mike Mearls.

 

Mike Mearls is the reason. He's shown pretty consistently that he wants a simple fighter. Remember the first playtest package, and the godawful, boring fighter? That's what Mearls originally had in mind. Frightening, yes. Only massive backlash forced him to reconsider.

 

In short, the simple fighter is a design choice made by Mearls. It is part of the 'Forget everything about 4e' philosophy he has adopted for Next. He has been dragged kicking and screaming to adopt some 4e stuff more recently, but it is clearly against his current design philosophy (yes, I know he was involved in 4e, but I mean his new, 'everything about 4e must go' philosophy for Next).

 

 

Someone on RPG.net found this old LiveJournal of Mearls, and this post is like a 180 from Mearl's current L&Ls.  Wondered what happened?

 

Hmm, I wonder what could have happened between 2005 and now?   

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

 

  

Bud_the_CHUD wrote:

 

Someone on RPG.net found this old LiveJournal of Mearls, and this post is like a 180 from Mearl's current L&Ls.  Wondered what happened?

 

Wow. That is... stunning. I find myself wondering if that is actually for real!

 

For those who didn't read it: it is basically Mearls making an appeal for having miniatures as a fundamental part of DnD and at the same time severely critiquing the 'mother may I' style of RPGs. It is incredibly ironic.

 

A few quotes:

 

' I always thought that the "miniatures take away from the roleplaying" argument was a bit of a cop out. I've never noticed any link between having figures on the table and people's willingness to roleplay. '

 

'Without miniatures, you short circuit a lot of the possibilities for combat-focused mastery for a player. You turn a lot of abilities and spells into "mother may I"* abilities - the DM decides when a player can use the feat, not the rules. That's a subtle but important difference. The player's feats only come into play if the DM wants them to. The player's choices are less important, because the DM can now arbitrarily put them into play or yank them out. That's the basis of the power divide between players and DMs, right there.

So why is there a natural tendency to link miniatures with games that feature no roleplaying? I think there's two factors at work. For players, combat is one part of the game. If you aren't very good at tactics, pushing those miniatures around a grid takes away from the parts of the game that you do like. I think that it's human nature to prefer to say "Miniatures take away from roleplaying, let's not use them" rather than "I'm not good at tactical combat, let's not use minis."

For DMs, things are a bit different. IME, there's a natural tendency for DMs to houserule the game to weaken the game's leveling effect WRT DM and player power. That's a post for a completely different thread, but it's one of those things that you really have to watch out for as a designer....

So, in the end the question isn't "Do you trust the DM?" The question is, "Why doesn't the the DM trust the players?" If we're taking power away from the players and giving it to the DM, why are we doing this? What purpose does it serve?'

 

Now, the two cases I outlined above don't apply to everyone, but they are the most common ones IME. In any case, I hope it provides some theoretical framework for why miniatures are a part of D&D. I think that D&D 3e is so popular precisely because it is the one commercial game that seeks to bridge the power gap between the DM and the players.**

*A "mother may I" ability in D&D is a PC talent that works only if the DM allows it to. The ranger's favored enemy is the best example - the ranger can only use it if the DM puts monsters into the adventure that qualify as the ranger's favored enemy. IMNSHO, mother may I abilities are bad for the game.'

 

All I can say is... I very much preferred the old Mearls

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

Mephi1234 wrote:

 

TopCheese wrote: I also would like to know why Fighters (and other mundanes) are stuck in low fantasy levels of play from level 1 to 20 when casters get to play in high fantasy. What is WotC afraid of?

Actually, its not WotC in this case.   I actually point to Lord of the Rings and similiar fantasy genre.   

 

 

You see, magic can do anything.    If you use magic with hard rules like most of Brandon Sanderson's works, or a more fluid version with less rules, it matters not.  The point is that you can do extrodinary crazy stuff beyond the ken of mere mortals.   Its like dropping a house filled with modern information technology, conviences, weapons, and food (including grocery store access, don't ask how) in the middle of a tribe still using bone weapons and tools to hunt and scavange for food.     Except that, unlike technology, magic has a hard time being shared with the masses - it tends to empower individuals.  

 

That is why.   Fighters are mundane beings who are restricted to mundane methods of fighting, generally without the help of "technology" ie magic.   Compare to creatures who have superhuman powers and abilities- of course the mundane won't last.   No, you need a beyond human powers (magic) to face another superhuman being.

 

Its so engrained in fantasy literature of all kinds.   Not D&D's fault, or WotC's fault, at all.      

 

 

I really think the key is to give the Fighter magical equipment.    If magic is the science of a fantasy setting, then giving a fighter magic boots and swords is like giving modern soldiers guns and heli transports. 

 

   But if you look at most actual myths, folklore, and stories prior to the rise of D&D, magic couldn't do anything.

 

   In those works, magic comes with strings attached.  Stuff like having consorted with demons, or being at the whims of a god. Or being of divine origin yourself. Matters of fate, destiny, and signifigance to plot also hampers how many problems magic can fix.

 

    When it was used, it tended to towards what D&D would classify as diviniation, abjuration, illusion, summoning (which always took a long time and almost always backfired), and curses. No radical stuff like becoming imperceptible, teleporting 100 miles, raising people who have been dead for days, and tossing around fireballs/lightning bolts.  

 

 

  And finally, spellcasters are usually vain/corruptable and cowardly schemers whose plans crumble when confonted with the charisma, bravery, purity, and forthright candor of the protagonist. Very rarely was the guy with the wand the protagonist.  It was almost always the guy with the sword.  Spellcasters, when they weren't antagonists, were almost always mentors, sidekicks, or plot devices.

 

   D&D spellcasters are a whole other matter compared to most mythical/fantasy spellcasters.  They're way more over the top in terms of the access they have to magic and the fact that they gain such power without having to answer to anybody.

Alex_ wrote:

 

Mephi1234 wrote:

 

TopCheese wrote: I also would like to know why Fighters (and other mundanes) are stuck in low fantasy levels of play from level 1 to 20 when casters get to play in high fantasy. What is WotC afraid of?

Actually, its not WotC in this case.   I actually point to Lord of the Rings and similiar fantasy genre.  

 

 

You see, magic can do anything.    If you use magic with hard rules like most of Brandon Sanderson's works, or a more fluid version with less rules, it matters not.  The point is that you can do extrodinary crazy stuff beyond the ken of mere mortals.   Its like dropping a house filled with modern information technology, conviences, weapons, and food (including grocery store access, don't ask how) in the middle of a tribe still using bone weapons and tools to hunt and scavange for food.     Except that, unlike technology, magic has a hard time being shared with the masses - it tends to empower individuals.  

 

That is why.   Fighters are mundane beings who are restricted to mundane methods of fighting, generally without the help of "technology" ie magic.   Compare to creatures who have superhuman powers and abilities- of course the mundane won't last.   No, you need a beyond human powers (magic) to face another superhuman being.

 

Its so engrained in fantasy literature of all kinds.   Not D&D's fault, or WotC's fault, at all.    

 

 

I really think the key is to give the Fighter magical equipment.    If magic is the science of a fantasy setting, then giving a fighter magic boots and swords is like giving modern soldiers guns and heli transports.

 

 

   But if you look at most actual myths, folklore, and stories prior to the rise of D&D, magic couldn't do anything.

 

   In those works, magic comes with strings attached.  Stuff like having consorted with demons, or being at the whims of a god. Or being of divine origin yourself. Matters of fate, destiny, and signifigance to plot also hampers how many problems magic can fix.

 

    When it was used, it tended to towards what D&D would classify as diviniation, abjuration, illusion, summoning (which always took a long time and almost always backfired), and curses. No radical stuff like becoming imperceptible, teleporting 100 miles, raising people who have been dead for days, and tossing around fireballs/lightning bolts.

 

 

  And finally, spellcasters are usually vain/corruptable and cowardly schemers whose plans crumble when confonted with the charisma, bravery, purity, and forthright candor of the protagonist. Very rarely was the guy with the wand the protagonist.  It was almost always the guy with the sword.  Spellcasters, when they weren't antagonists, were almost always mentors, sidekicks, or plot devices.

 

   D&D spellcasters are a whole other matter compared to most mythical/fantasy spellcasters.  They're way more over the top in terms of the access they have to magic and the fact that they gain such power without having to answer to anybody.

 

That's well said, too, but Gandalf was one rather influential exception.  His magic wasn't like D&D spell-casting, but he was a major character in Middle Earth.  Your point goes to show just how great D&D's development of fantasy and magic has been.

LotR is a great example of what magic should be able to accomplish at a time when warriors are little more than well trained soldiers. There are no fireballs, no magical flight, no magical mind control, and invisibility is limited to a unique and powerful cursed artifact. D&D has always had the problem of giving spellcasters the magical powers usually reserved only for superheroes, and giving all of them to players before they reach level 7. That goes against the source enters in every conceivable way.