It is about making my character the best at what he does. It is about my character shining, It is about a combat focused wizard that or somehow is worse than the fighter even if he uses all his resources to combat or it's not. It is about a combat-heavy campaign that you can choose more than fighter or not.
All of that is optimization. Take combat focused spells if you want a combat focused wizard. All classes can shine if they want. Again, variation in power level is fine so long as that variation is not too great.
It is about making a combat-focused wizard a trap option or not. Again, If I want a combat focused wizard, I want him to shine in combat, in the same frequency and intensity that the fighter gets to shine in combat. Don't make my combat focused wizard worse than the fighter just because "the fighter should be the best at combat".
This doesn't even make any sense. The fighter is not the best in combat. He never was. He's just the best overall melee class. By that I mean that while other melee classes can surpass the fighter in narrow aspects of melee combat, the fighter is the best melee fighter as a whole.
Some people think that the fighter should be the best at combat. That was me arguing against this. Fighter and other classes can be different in combat, but it should be balanced in combat. I was talking that, if you make one class better at combat than the others, that will make the other classes trap options if you want a combat focused character, because you want a combat focused character.
There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different. I've long advocated supporting both the Points of Light setting and settings full of magic items. I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes. First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters. Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters? Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management. Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun. Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system. Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
The fighter fights normally. The rogue uses skills and fights unconventionally.
How the rogue is fighting unconventionnally ? To surprise the foe and hit it on weak points are common goals of any combattant. D&D rogues fight with weapons, so nothing unconventional again.
The current rogue is a military class. The only choice for a non military class is the dodge ability to replace sneak attack, which still requires combat training. I never saw any rogues in D&D beside bards.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
Wrecan, in theory, if there are three pillars, then making 3 classes, which each embody one pillar allows for balance across pillars. And, for people like me, who want to dm a party where each player has options in all pillars, it allows for that easily (just by forcing everyone to have at least one level in each class). But, oh boy, that sounds like a game with little replay value. And, that's how I feel about your suggestion that to capture the flavor of a fighter with any depth, I should play a multiclass. It just feels halfhearted - yes the class stinks, but you can multiclass to make it work!
But, maybe there are enough people who want a combat only fighter that I should just assume the fighter isn't for me. I hope that if combat specialist is assumed in the math, they also allow for a combat specialist I might play.
Some people think that the fighter should be the best at combat.
I don't get this line of thinking. Combat is about far more than the fighter is capable of doing.
Fighter and other classes can be different in combat, but it should be balanced in combat.
This I disagree with you on. There can be imbalance if it is not too severe. Moderated imbalance still allows all classes to shine in combat.
I was talking that, if you make one class better at combat than the others, that will make the other classes trap options if you want a combat focused character, because you want a combat focused character.
This isn't true. It's only true if the other classes are so far above the one class that it dwarfs (elfs? gnomes?) the lesser class. That was the problem with 3e. It was far to imbalanced.
Some people think that the fighter should be the best at combat.
This largely comes from the continued insistance that the rogue is "the skill class" which basically leaves no out-of-combat role for fighters. Thus if fighters suck at everything else, they must be the best at combat.
Personally I'd prefer to just see the fighter be more balanced at non-combat stuff though, but first we have to get past the "fighters can't have nice things" stigma.
Some people think that the fighter should be the best at combat.
This largely comes from the continued insistance that the rogue is "the skill class" which basically leaves no out-of-combat role for fighters. Thus if fighters suck at everything else, they must be the best at combat.
Feats and skills give fighters plenty to do out of combat. Backgrounds are great.
@Monsieur_Moustache Cheating or Running isn't rational fighting. Maybe better words are: Fighters fight normal and fair. Rogue fight with advantage or not at all.
Your are talking about knights. Most warrors prefer to live than die by having been fair.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
Didn't say fighter fight unfair. Said they can fight fair.
A rogue can't fight fair. They have to cheat, be overleveled, retreat, or die. There is no one n one duels with no advantages with rogues. If they can't sneak attack or dodge the orc, they better run.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Feats and skills give fighters plenty to do out of combat. Backgrounds are great.
Feats are pretty mcuh all combat.
As for skills, fighters get the worst skills of everyone. Rogues, Wizards and clerics gain at least 1 bonus skill, and rogues get lots of them, plus tricks on top. Wizards and clerics obviously have out of combat magic, but what does the fighter have?
