The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[Quertus]

You are falling behind the ad-hominem curve. Currently my players do team-work too well as I have enslaved them with my communist ideology.

Hmmm? Oh, I suppose it's fair to say that it is an attack on your players, but, more to the point, it's just me stating, "as you should already know, given the stories you've told," followed by, "the system won't solve all problems - some players are just going to make problems, no matter what you do".

Nope. I do not. And I see no reason why magic related things should be any different.

And I'm not from Talakeal's Bizarro World but not being able to interact with the problem my friends/teammates are struggling with makes it really hard to help them with it. This is the first time I have completely disagreed with one of your posts in a long time. Well not completely I agree that everyone should interact with every challenge (participate in every minigame), but then you go against that? Why?

Ah, because I have explained myself very poorly. Let me try again.

When I was in college, I was part of the, uh, "computer lab club". Anyway, the professor in charge told us that we were having problems with theft, and asked us for suggestions for a solution. We (I) proposed numerous multi-layer technological defenses, including limited access points, card readers, video cameras, etc. By the time we were done, short of a wrecking ball or explosives, no one could penetrate our defenses (without social engineering *and* a Halloween mask, which seemed unlikely). The professor just sat there and shook his head at how we had approached the problem so very differently than those with other mindsets, who might have lectured students on morality etc.

The point I was making was not that the magical being cannot interact with a given challenge, but that they possibly cannot even conceptualize interacting with it the same way.

So, we've got a grungy lion. You or i might think about a brush, or buckets of water (and probably a tranquilizer). The truly magical being has never used those tools in their life, and so likely thinks in terms of, say, the Sleep charm, dirt attracting magnets, and summoning water elementals. Or Polymorph the lion into a stuffed toy, then ritually instill it with Order, and hope that it sticks when you end the Polymorph effect. Or…

It's not that they cannot engage the same challenge; it's that they bring a *completely* different toolkit.

And, sure, you can *also* have Wizards, who are just muggles with magic bolted on, and gishes, who are more mundane-capability-heavy muggles with magic strapped on, to go with your "true" Muggles, but being magical? That's something else entirely. It's the "I cannot interface muggle", the same way a "true" muggle had no magic, and therefore no way to interface "magic".

Clearer now?

EDIT: you don't actually have to go that far. But think of it as a point buy, where muggles spend 0 points on anything magical, and then there's a spectrum of completely viable, functional characters all the way from 0-100% magical. That a "Ranger" could be a functional character, able to interact with most every minigame, and that a magical being could also be a functional character, interacting with almost every minigame.

More normally, you have things like the Wizard, who can interact with almost every minigame, and who technically *could* try mundane things like swinging a sword, but it would usually be suboptimal for them to attempt it.

I also disagree with your idea of the fighter class solution. It is sort of off topic but I feel like it might be related to the problem but I haven't figured out how yet so maybe not.

Eh, it's hard to say if any of the design decisions were based on such logic.

I'm just saying that, if we're proposing solutions, were should understand what those "solutions" are breaking / what problems they will cause.

Giving the Fighter explicit buttons to push outside of combat would make the class - and the game - less inviting to many of the war gamers I've played with.

Yes, it should be there, but it should be optional.

Ultimately, it's simply much easier to limit what fantastical abilities can actually do, rather than try to compensate for them.

Or to "boost" non-fantastical abilities up to what they can actually do? Or to make everyone fantastical?

[Florian]

@Quertus:

Beware the technocrat, solutions without any concept of ethics or morals. That said...

I think we have two main thrust directions on this topic, whether "magic" is part of the regular "physics" or whether it is entirely separate from it. The other one is about whether it is a vertical or horizontal (or both) integration/interaction of "magic" and "physics".

Ok, I'm going to use D&D/PF classes as an example. You seem to posit that a "separate" approach, with Fighter being on the "no magic" side, Sorcerer being on the "magic" side and Wizard being on the "no magic, but can access magic" side, right? I don't see any problem there, as long as we talk about horizontal integration. Would actually make sense when we're using the oD&D/RIFTS approach, with the Fighter and Wizard being Human (with all that includes) and the Sorcerer being something different, like a Will o the Wisp or something. As in the Fighter has a body, legs and arms, so he walks, uses a sword and wears armor, the Wizard has the same but uses the magic equivalent of that and the orb floats, uses telekinesis and zaps stuff. This model instantly breaks down when you have vertical instead of horizontal integration. I'm living in the rural outskirts of a capital city, so I'm confident when rating car > public transport > bike > walking. Works when we are talking about equivalents, like floating around being as exhausting as walking, breaks down when one can teleport, the other.... drives to the airport and takes a plane. Not because of not being able to come to the same conclusions, but because of internal vs. external abilities.

[Kyutaru]

D&D just had to reconcile Gandalf being in the same party as Aragorn. The two clearly have different capabilities and power levels. Aragorn probably doesn't resent Gandalf's existence though. Ultimately, he may have been only good at combat but he also had armies and ghost pals and didn't treat Charisma as a dump stat.

Magic is magic because you draw it from the Weave. Supernatural speed and strength are just extraordinary characteristics.

[FaerieGodfather]

Aragorn probably doesn't resent Gandalf's existence though.

Real people in life-or-death situations tend to appreciate powerful allies who can trivialize the threat to their lives and livelihoods.

[Pleh]

When I was in college, I was part of the, uh, "computer lab club". Anyway, the professor in charge told us that we were having problems with theft, and asked us for suggestions for a solution. We (I) proposed numerous multi-layer technological defenses, including limited access points, card readers, video cameras, etc. By the time we were done, short of a wrecking ball or explosives, no one could penetrate our defenses (without social engineering *and* a Halloween mask, which seemed unlikely). The professor just sat there and shook his head at how we had approached the problem so very differently than those with other mindsets, who might have lectured students on morality etc.

The point I was making was not that the magical being cannot interact with a given challenge, but that they possibly cannot even conceptualize interacting with it the same way.

So, we've got a grungy lion. You or i might think about a brush, or buckets of water (and probably a tranquilizer). The truly magical being has never used those tools in their life, and so likely thinks in terms of, say, the Sleep charm, dirt attracting magnets, and summoning water elementals. Or Polymorph the lion into a stuffed toy, then ritually instill it with Order, and hope that it sticks when you end the Polymorph effect. Or…

It's not that they cannot engage the same challenge; it's that they bring a *completely* different toolkit.

This is something I don't think D&D typically supports (except maybe 5e which has at will cantrips).

Because magic in the game rarely lets you simply solve problems at will. You only get X number of spells per day.

Why Telekinesis your hair if it costs the effort of a 5th level spell slot, when a hairbrush costs only a copper piece and 5 minutes of manual effort? Did the sorcerer just not brush their hair ever until they could cast that spell? Remember, Sorcerers who are born magical are still limited to spell slots.

This is kind of what I was getting to when I was saying Knock already has a built in cost: the spell slot. If ever there was a reason casters don't fix everything with magic, it's got to be the limits of how much magic they can use. Spell Slots are the most direct limit on that.

[Florian]

Real people in life-or-death situations tend to appreciate powerful allies who can trivialize the threat to their lives and livelihoods.

That's so and no argument there. A squad of grenadiers love their IFW, but the tankers also love their grenadiers. Both can protect from and be vulnerable to different kinds of threads, in a very basic RPS sense.

[Kyutaru]

That's so and no argument there. A squad of grenadiers love their IFW, but the tankers also love their grenadiers. Both can protect from and be vulnerable to different kinds of threads, in a very basic RPS sense.

Yeah, Wizards might be battleships/aircraft carriers but they still need their cruiser pals. The Tank Destroyer or Artillery might be OP as heck against all things armor but he still needs the main battle tanks to scout for him and defend the line from light tanks rushing his position.

[Max_Killjoy]

D&D just had to reconcile Gandalf being in the same party as Aragorn.

An example of how things that work in stories don't always work in an RPG.

In the books, no one is being asked to play characters who are overshadowed in power by a semi-divine being posing as a mortal played by another player.

Magic is magic because you draw it from the Weave. Supernatural speed and strength are just extraordinary characteristics.

No. "The Weave" is irrelevant to this discussion. It's a sidebar for a single poorly-built setting.

Magical is magical. If a character can survive being dunked in lava, can lift a 10-ton rock, or can run twice as fast as Usain Bolt for an hour at a time, that's magical/fantastic/supernatural.

(With the caveat that if this is within the range of the possible for other human/human-like people in the setting, then it's instead something you must take into account in your worldbuilding -- a setting with farmers who are better at pulling the plow than the oxen are doesn't look like the bog-standard quasi-medieval fantasy RPG setting at all.)

[Quertus]

It's… only indirectly related to this thread, that I cannot play the character I want - the character who is truly magical - because I am held back by a system with spell slots, by a system which bolts magic on top of muggles.

The character I *want* to run would make Harry Potter Wizards look like experts in muggle technology. The character I *want* to run would come from a culture that was the logical extension of everyone having at will magic, and being trained to use it (where by "trained", I mean the way we are trained to walk & chew gum).

Yes, the will-o-wisp is probably easiest to conceptualize, but even a human form could work if muggle concepts like hair brushes were either long forgotten or never invented.

[Frozen_Feet]

In the books, no one is being asked to play characters who are overshadowed in power by a semi-divine being posing as a mortal played by another player.

In a game or a play, someone can be asked to do that just fine. It only becomes a design issue if a game or play isn't upfront about the choice being presented & the person who gets the role becomes upset when it doesn't fit their expectations.

Or, put differently, we have following possibilities:

1) rules purport to create fiction-like results, but don't
2) rules allow for fiction-like results, but don't produce them consistently
3) rules allow for fiction-like results, but only produce them consistently if players play their characters in a specific way
4) rules are rigged to favor fiction-like results even if players try to play their characters opposite to type
5) rules demands players play their characters in a fiction-like manner

This is largely orthogonal to magic-martial-divide. You could discuss this same thing in context of a historical campaign where one guy is playing Alexander the Great and another is playing a soldier in his army. To elaborate the example:

Under 1), Alexander cannot be Great. It's literally impossible to replicate historical feats of Alexander without a GM purposefully bending the rules. Without doing so, the soldier outshines Alexander in every conflict.

Under 2), there is theoretical chance for Alexander to achieve what he did in history, but in addition to a player playing them correctly, their success is dependant on dice or some other random factor. So it could be that only 1-in-20 games, Alexander truly is Great. Rest of the time, Alexander fails or the soldier pulls ahead.

Under 3), Alexander will be Great, provided his player repeats decisions of historical Alexander and the soldier's player plays the role of a loyal member of his army. Deviations are a matter of deliberate player choice during the game.

Under 4), the situation is basically inverse of 2). In addition to the players' choices, there's some random element pushing the game towards the historical track. So even if Alexander's player fails to play them correctly and the soldier's player tries to stab Alex in the back, 19-in-20 games history repeats itself.

Under 5), one guy has to play Alexander accurate to history and the other guy has to play the soldier as loyal until history dictates otherwise. Failure to do so is direct rules violation and gets the player penalized or removed from the game. Player agency only exists where it does noy contradict with history.

[Florian]

It's… only indirectly related to this thread, that I cannot play the character I want - the character who is truly magical - because I am held back by a system with spell slots, by a system which bolts magic on top of muggles.

The character I *want* to run would make Harry Potter Wizards look like experts in muggle technology. The character I *want* to run would come from a culture that was the logical extension of everyone having at will magic, and being trained to use it (where by "trained", I mean the way we are trained to walk & chew gum).

Yes, the will-o-wisp is probably easiest to conceptualize, but even a human form could work if muggle concepts like hair brushes were either long forgotten or never invented.

This is directly related to the original topic of this thread. If you set a sphere of possibilities for the "mundane", then set a sphere of possibilities for "magic", then we will run again and again into the problem that one type of character will have access to one, the other type of character will have access to both types of sphere, unless we model the fiction in such a way that they are kept separate. In 3E D&D, you can see this in the 16/9th gish builds, that can do both quite well.

[Kyutaru]

This is directly related to the original topic of this thread. If you set a sphere of possibilities for the "mundane", then set a sphere of possibilities for "magic", then we will run again and again into the problem that one type of character will have access to one, the other type of character will have access to both types of sphere, unless we model the fiction in such a way that they are kept separate. In 3E D&D, you can see this in the 16/9th gish builds, that can do both quite well.

Looking at it that way, Fighters going to Fighter College are studying swordsmanship as their major while Wizards going to Wizard College are practicing magic and spellcraft. They're both professionalizing their field of study. It's true the Fighter doesn't know magic but the Wizard also doesn't have Weapon Specialization, Action Surge, and hordes of martial feats. It's merely the case that the Fighter's field of study is much narrower since the Wizard can select some melee combat feats that may be less optimal for his class and, using magic to enhance his attack bonuses, gets to simulate a melee damage dealer. Since opening up the Fighter to the potential to study magic is out of the question thematically, there's multiclassing for that if you really want to (or Eldritch Knight), I see no other option but to accept that Wizard studies differ and will remain unique in some fashion from the Fighter's perspective.

But similarly, this is only really a fighter problem. Other classes do tend to diminish combat to specialize in other areas of expertise. It would be like every Ranger attends both Fighter College and does some classes at the Wizard College at night. He gives up some mastery in combat to obtain mastery in a different area. They also gain their own masteries in wilderness that other classes do not have. If anything, the Fighter's only drawback is that he lacks (most of the time) a unique class-defining characteristic that makes them stand out in the spotlight as having some great field of study no one else can replicate. It's just not the case because everyone can replicate the Fighter's area of expertise. He just happens to be the only one with a PhD in it.

Real life too has differing specialties and whether you consider a Business major to be superior to an Art degree holder purely because one makes more money than the other will showcase your thoughts on the subject. But it isn't necessarily true to say that the Art degree is a worthless endeavor simply because some tech genius majoring in Graphic Design can write a program that renders character models without needing to draw them, albeit at less graphical impressiveness than a hand-drawn character model would be. Whether you paint with brushstrokes or paint with shapes on a computer doesn't matter unless you care about the fine differences between the results. Artists will use pastels, paints, pencils, shiny rocks, whatever because each one results in a different aesthetic even though the end picture can look mostly the same.

As with the example above where someone thinks we can't have a Gandalf in the party just because he overshadows someone else's character, all of this only matters if you have some expectations of equality or class envy. That is so NOT the standard that everyone uses and some people are more than comfortable with someone else having a better position in the team, in the party, in life in general. I would not want to be the President of my country even though it's magnanimous and wields infinitely more power than my class.

[FaerieGodfather]

Huge difference between two characters in a novel written by the same person, and two characters being played by two different players at the same table.

It's not my character who gets pissed off when the wizard wraps up the entire adventure in thirty seconds.

[Florian]

We are still talking about a game with the initial premise being that all playing pieces are more or less equal and valid choices (as in, they are balanced in one way or the other). Should that initial premise be different, as in, a system models a fictional reality without taking care of balance, then we wouldn't have this discussion.

[Talakeal]

Huge difference between two characters in a novel written by the same person, and two characters being played by two different players at the same table.

It's not my character who gets pissed off when the wizard wraps up the entire adventure in thirty seconds.

I would argue that it is. Being special and being useful are a huge part of most people's need for self actualization, and deep down most people fantasize about being a hero.

Maybe not Aragorn, because he is Mr. Perfect, but I can easily see someone more down to Earth, say Boromir or Gimle, eventually coming to resent Gandalf holding them back from their true potential.

[Kyutaru]

Huge difference between two characters in a novel written by the same person, and two characters being played by two different players at the same table.

It's not my character who gets pissed off when the wizard wraps up the entire adventure in thirty seconds.

Mind you, it's not my player who does that either. I honestly don't know any real human beings who stare down the table at other party members outperforming them with envy. Everyone seems to just accept that the wizard does this and the fighter does that. I totally get that it might not be that way for you or someone you know.

We are still talking about a game with the initial premise being that all playing pieces are more or less equal and valid choices (as in, they are balanced in one way or the other). Should that initial premise be different, as in, a system models a fictional reality without taking care of balance, then we wouldn't have this discussion.

Fair enough, equality matters is the defacto here. For that though I maintain that different and unequal are very much separate ideas. The Fighter's PhD in swinging sticks is hyperfocused while the Wizard can only imitate it to a reasonable degree. It'd be like the Sorcerer complaining that he gets less diversity from the Wizard and so is inherently weaker. He chose that path for the perks of Sorcery, whatever they may be, as the Fighter did for the perks of being a Fighter. Ultimately when buffs are involved the Fighter multiplies better.

[Talakeal]

Mind you, it's not my player who does that either. I honestly don't know any real human beings who stare down the table at other party members outperforming them with envy. Everyone seems to just accept that the wizard does this and the fighter does that. I totally get that it might not be that way for you or someone you know.

This is true.

However:

Every time I have played 3.X D&D we have gotten into situations where the fighter player simply felt useless, from swarms to force cages, and we have had situations where the DM got into an argument with the wizard player trying to reign in their RAW abuses.

Note that this is a pattern across many different groups over many years, not just the result of a few "bizarro world" groups or players.

[Max_Killjoy]

I know very few players who want to play the sidekick, second-fiddle, or secondary character.

Those few who do tend to make largely useless characters who are built to be deliberately bad even at the things they could actually contribute.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is true.

However:

Every time I have played 3.X D&D we have gotten into situations where the fighter player simply felt useless, from swarms to force cages, and we have had situations where the DM got into an argument with the wizard player trying to reign in their RAW abuses.

Note that this is a pattern across many different groups over many years, not just the result of a few "bizarro world" groups or players.

For that matter, I've played in a single Pathfinder game. Low optimization all around, but my 6th level Oracle and the party's Witch completely shut down a hard encounter with three spells (I don't remember which ones the Witch used, but I cast Silence on the party's beatstick and they cornered the big bad summoner dude in a corner and beat him to death without him getting a single spell off).

Even at that point I felt out of balance with the rest of them, and it was only going to get worse.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is true.

However:

Every time I have played 3.X D&D we have gotten into situations where the fighter player simply felt useless, from swarms to force cages, and we have had situations where the DM got into an argument with the wizard player trying to reign in their RAW abuses.

Note that this is a pattern across many different groups over many years, not just the result of a few "bizarro world" groups or players.

Frankly, and sadly, that seems to be the norm, not the exception, IME. One of the reasons I got tired of D&D across multiple iterations of the system.

[Florian]

Fair enough, equality matters is the defacto here. For that though I maintain that different and unequal are very much separate ideas. The Fighter's PhD in swinging sticks is hyperfocused while the Wizard can only imitate it to a reasonable degree. It'd be like the Sorcerer complaining that he gets less diversity from the Wizard and so is inherently weaker. He chose that path for the perks of Sorcery, whatever they may be, as the Fighter did for the perks of being a Fighter. Ultimately when buffs are involved the Fighter multiplies better.

I've got a bit of a problem with your argument. See, the problem here is that you tend to model stuff first, then assign that to certain thematically fitting heaps and call it "class". Now you could also go the route of Fate Core or TSOY and map everything to the same impact, with "mundane 5" being equal to "magic 5", but with stunts making the difference in modeling, with a set of smaller "1/4" being less impressive than a "4/4", but both evening out at the cost of 4 refresh.

[Kyutaru]

I've got a bit of a problem with your argument. See, the problem here is that you tend to model stuff first, then assign that to certain thematically fitting heaps and call it "class". Now you could also go the route of Fate Core or TSOY and map everything to the same impact, with "mundane 5" being equal to "magic 5", but with stunts making the difference in modeling, with a set of smaller "1/4" being less impressive than a "4/4", but both evening out at the cost of 4 refresh.

Issue with that is relevance in the moment. This was something Clerics had to contend with in 2nd edition. Are you fighting normal mobs? You're a weak fighter who barely contributes unless someone needs buffs. You enable other archtypes to perform while playing second fiddle. But when you're up against the Undead, suddenly being a Cleric is very relevant. You are overpowered against Undead and stand toe-to-toe with the fighters brandishing your power. Even if it's not the fact that you can obliterate them with a Turn, you can simply touch one them and HEAL THEM TO DEATH.

So whether you see a class as strong in any given situation can vary. The balance gets harder to see when someone is more often in the spotlight. A ranger is noticeably less awesome if the campaign has no wilderness elements. A paladin is a gimped gish when nothing he's fighting is evil. A rogue without traps to disarm is a sad panda. But in the moment where their relevance shines their contribution is apparent.

Wizards, generally, are good at a lot of things. But that goes back to my argument that the DM ultimately decides what magic they have access to. If this is a concern for you then you should not be granting the caster carte blanche when it comes to spell selection. But even should you, I feel that a Fighter supported by his party's Wizard and buffed to heck is contributing tremendously compared to a Wizard buffing another Wizard with the same spells. Their lack of magic means they forego things like control and buffs to hyperspecialize in order to focus their power so that someone else can handle the magic buffing that they still need, deal with resistances, control the enemies, all so that their final "DPS" can hit its absolute peak. If the fighter had to buff himself every combat using innate abilities similar to Wizard buffs instead of letting someone else handle it then he'd be wasting turns doing something that isn't fighting. It's merely a choice to forego these qualities in favor of promoting teamwork.

It's as if you're a member of a SWAT team and your one job is to get really good at saving hostages by taking down bad guys. You don't have any of the Divination of the dispatcher, you didn't conjure up or pay for the weapons that your financial department outfitted you with, and you certainly don't have the authority to do so purely because you say you do. There are supporting characters operating alongside you that enable you to do YOUR job as well as you possibly can. Fighters focus on combat to the best of their ability and save everything else for someone else to handle, not because they are unequal in importance to those other positions but because it just works out better for the team when everyone focuses on what they're good at.

[Cluedrew]

Ah, because I have explained myself very poorly. Let me try again. [...] The point I was making was not that the magical being cannot interact with a given challenge, but that they possibly cannot even conceptualize interacting with it the same way. [...] It's not that [the wizard] cannot engage the same challenge; it's that they bring a *completely* different toolkit. [...] Clearer now?

No I don't think so. You appear to have gone and inverted the issue. Yes a wizard can interact with a given challenge and they bring a different mind set and tool set to the job. That is not the issue. The issue is the fighter can't do those things.

You mentioned Harry Potter (in the context of a character that sounds interesting and yet hopelessly ill-suited for D&D) and the issue is not that wizards don't understand firelegs firearms and phones. (They do understand toilets and stoves and toothbrushes and all the other muggle things they actually use in day to day life.) The issue is fighters don't have firearms and phones, metaphorically and given the setting literally. There is no special tool fighters can use that a wizard cannot.

You want to understand this problem? Well given this is you I will make a special recommendation. Play a fighter. Make a fighter whose purpose is to fight and solves problems with physical fighter-like means.* Play it in 20 campaigns under 20 GMs. In combat focused campaigns and social campaigns and exploration campaigns and in high OP parties and low OP parties. With other fighters and in a party oozing with magic.

I can guess how it will go. ... Or since that would take a long time, ask people who like fighters why they like them and why they feel the fighter gets the short end of the stick.

* As opposed to mind games or something that I am sure you could make work.

Giving the Fighter explicit buttons to push outside of combat would make the class - and the game - less inviting to many of the war gamers I've played with.

Don't play role-playing games with them, they don't seem to be enjoying it. You seem to be trying to hoodwink them at this point. Alternate D&D and War Machine or something. Its my favourite war game and I would recommend it over D&D combat any day.

[Florian]

For that matter, I've played in a single Pathfinder game. Low optimization all around, but my 6th level Oracle and the party's Witch completely shut down a hard encounter with three spells (I don't remember which ones the Witch used, but I cast Silence on the party's beatstick and they cornered the big bad summoner dude in a corner and beat him to death without him getting a single spell off).

Even at that point I felt out of balance with the rest of them, and it was only going to get worse.

It´s funny that I have to echo Quertus on this for a bit. The rare cases that I actually have the chance to be a player in a game using Pathfinder, I tend towards martial classes because I know my way around them and how to make them "sing". That's not necessarily high OP, but simply having acquired in-depth system mastery over time. What you describe is the relatively high "floor" that comes attached to certain classes. You can't really do anything wrong with a 08/15 Cackling Witch because it is simply functional. You know your way around using martials, you break the game from the get-go. Sounds counter-intuitive, but I was asked to be a player in a campaign of Kingmaker, especially a Wizard, for the ability to rise or lower the level to fit with the table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It´s funny that I have to echo Quertus on this for a bit. The rare cases that I actually have the chance to be a player in a game using Pathfinder, I tend towards martial classes because I know my way around them and how to make them "sing". That's not necessarily high OP, but simply having acquired in-depth system mastery over time. What you describe is the relatively high "floor" that comes attached to certain classes. You can't really do anything wrong with a 08/15 Cackling Witch because it is simply functional. You know your way around using martials, you break the game from the get-go. Sounds counter-intuitive, but I was asked to be a player in a campaign of Kingmaker, especially a Wizard, for the ability to rise or lower the level to fit with the table.

Here's the thing (and this might seem crass). I'm not concerned for people who know how to optimize. Sure, an expert can get a lot out of a fighter or tone down a wizard to fit a weaker group.

I'm concerned for the newbie. The one without that system knowledge, who comes into it thinking that they'll be a strong and powerful warrior...and aren't. Because 90% (exaggerated, but not much) of the system is a trap for them. The one who unwittingly picks a "broken" class and doesn't have the knowledge to tone it down (and so overshadows people without intending to). The one who doesn't realize that you have to jump through a dozen hoops just to keep in the same game, or the one who doesn't realize that you have to consciously anti-optimize to stay back with the party.

I personally find the self-hobbling "wizards" (and druids, and ...) to come across (intentionally or not) as condescending. "Sure," it seems to say, "I could solve that problem with a wave of my hand, but I'll let you lesser beings muddle along until you're totally stuck, then I'll swoop in and solve things." It's very easy for that to come across as someone "generously" offering a huge golf handicap. It's the confidence that no matter what you do, you can't compete unless they let you. And that's horrible, horrible game design and a recipe for disaster.

[Kyutaru]

No I don't think so. You appear to have gone and inverted the issue. Yes a wizard can interact with a given challenge and they bring a different mind set and tool set to the job. That is not the issue. The issue is the fighter can't do those things.

Would that mean you see Bards and Druids as some of the best classes being that they are jacks of all trades who can do most things and interact with more challenges?

[Florian]

@PP

At this point, I've consumed enough alcohol to kill a horse, so...

Please consider some of the points I made a bit earlier about how we tend to model fantastical reality and what we could gleam from that basic approach, especially when we want things to be balanced.

I also tend to point out (mainstream) game system that had developments that are not directly related to D&D, like DSA or SM as food for thought. We can go of the beaten path and into indy going if you want.

[Quertus]

Don't play role-playing games with them, they don't seem to be enjoying it. You seem to be trying to hoodwink them at this point. Alternate D&D and War Machine or something. Its my favourite war game and I would recommend it over D&D combat any day.

So, I wanted to address this first.

As you know, I started as a war gamer, but I don't play for the war game portion of an RPG any more. But that transition? Some people can jump in cold turkey; others need to ease out of their comfort zone. For many of the war gamers I've played with, having a character with no explicit, inherent buttons to push outside of combat, in a game with scenario-level tools that anyone *could* manipulate was optimal. They were here for the war game; other people could handle the "plot". It even came with built-in spotlight sharing. So I have a hard time seeing why you'd think this was a bad setup, given that, afaict, it's fairly optimal.

Also, War Machine is… OK. But it doesn't scale well to "triple the points" or "4-player", which is one of several reasons it feels kinda samey and predictable. I prefer war games with more variety. And where your choice of "class" does not so hard code your options as War Machine does.

You want to understand this problem? Well given this is you I will make a special recommendation. Play a fighter. Make a fighter whose purpose is to fight and solves problems with physical fighter-like means.* Play it in 20 campaigns under 20 GMs. In combat focused campaigns and social campaigns and exploration campaigns and in high OP parties and low OP parties. With other fighters and in a party oozing with magic.

I can guess how it will go. ... Or since that would take a long time, ask people who like fighters why they like them and why they feel the fighter gets the short end of the stick.

* As opposed to mind games or something that I am sure you could make work.

Well played.

I've played Fighters/muggles in numerous systems, including 2e & 3e, to get a view "from the trenches", to let me do a better* job playing Wizards.

In fact, proportionally, I've played too many them in 3e for my taste. Worse, I don't remember receiving a single buff spell as a muggle since y2k.

I've been party leader, party tactician, and primary damage dealer on multiple occasions. I've been "the guy with style", and I've been completely bloody useless. I've been OP, I've been a joke, and on at least one occasion, the best thing about my character was the fact that I brought a war horse.

But I don't really enjoy playing muggles. I've wasted far too much time on them already - what do you suspect that I do not see?

* Both "more effective" and "party friendly"

I'll reply to other things in a bit.

[Cluedrew]

On War Gamers: You know what maybe how to get new players into the game as a bit beyond the scope of this thread. So I am going to say "maybe" to the first part, but forward the idea that having a combat class might not be the best way to do it. In 5e terms a couple of subclasses from different and diverse classes might be a better solution. Say the Gladiator Fighter, the War God Cleric and the Battle Mage Wizard.

On War Games: If you know a more varied and dynamic war game than War Machine + Hordes (I played Circle Orobos) I would actually like to hear about it. It is the best I've seen in that regard.

On Playing Fighters: I thought that might speak to you. As for what your not seeing: I think you have seen it you just didn't recognize it for what it is. After all, we are talking about problems that make fighters unfun to play, so if you aren't having fun playing fighters maybe you have already found them. (We could go into more detail if you want to be sure.)

[Quertus]

This is directly related to the original topic of this thread. If you set a sphere of possibilities for the "mundane", then set a sphere of possibilities for "magic", then we will run again and again into the problem that one type of character will have access to one, the other type of character will have access to both types of sphere, unless we model the fiction in such a way that they are kept separate. In 3E D&D, you can see this in the 16/9th gish builds, that can do both quite well.

You know, I've begun to question that. People complain that the Sorcerer is half a spell level behind - the Gish is usually significantly further behind than that.

A -4 to hit seems pretty significant - that's an estimated average -40% damage at base 50/50 odds to hit.

It feels like a Gish in a party with a dedicated Fighter & a dedicated Wizard would feel rather lackluster. But, having never had that setup in 3e, I'm not speaking from experience.

It's not my character who gets pissed off when the wizard wraps up the entire adventure in thirty seconds.

It's the Wizard's player, who would like more of a challenge?

We are still talking about a game with the initial premise being that all playing pieces are more or less equal and valid choices (as in, they are balanced in one way or the other). Should that initial premise be different, as in, a system models a fictional reality without taking care of balance,

Why are we making that assumption? Is there any reason beyond, "that's the lie that the 3e devs fed us"?

I would argue that it is. Being special and being useful are a huge part of most people's need for self actualization, and deep down most people fantasize about being a hero.

Maybe not Aragorn, because he is Mr. Perfect, but I can easily see someone more down to Earth, say Boromir or Gimle, eventually coming to resent Gandalf holding them back from their true potential.

Gandalf… holding the party back. That's a new one.

OK, yes, the obnoxiously op DMPC keeping the party on the rails could be argued to be holding Aragorn back from his leadership potential, or Boromir back from his backstabbing potential. Then again, "what does an 'x' do when they're not 'x-ing'?" can be an interesting question, and certainly is necessary to answer if you want to paint the full picture of the character.

-----

Special & useful? "Useful" sounds like "participation"; "special" sounds like "shine". Personally, I lean towards "participation", with "special" often coming from "everyone is special, everyone is a unique snowflake", alla "my character cooks his own food because he is allergic to grapes".

While I'm curious on your take on these ideas, I'm most concerned with the fail state of "everyone wants to be the hero". I'm curious if you have any stories of successful instances of what you want, to help me see it as a good thing.

This is true.

However:

Every time I have played 3.X D&D we have gotten into situations where the fighter player simply felt useless, from swarms to force cages, and we have had situations where the DM got into an argument with the wizard player trying to reign in their RAW abuses.

Note that this is a pattern across many different groups over many years, not just the result of a few "bizarro world" groups or players.

Frankly, and sadly, that seems to be the norm, not the exception, IME. One of the reasons I got tired of D&D across multiple iterations of the system.

That certainly hasn't been my experience.

In 2e, the Fighter was the king of the hill, with the largest toolkit, best magic item selection, greatest survivability, and most ability to impact the game.

In 3e, builds like the übercharger and headhunter not just ruled, but all but solo'd combat, and magic item shops and Leadership let them get as much utility as they wanted.

Balance to the table. Then, there's no problem. I believe I gave a whole list of solutions to Force Cage; I haven't seen many challenges that a 3e "Fighter" simply cannot solve.

I know very few players who want to play the sidekick, second-fiddle, or secondary character.

Those few who do tend to make largely useless characters who are built to be deliberately bad even at the things they could actually contribute.

That's another way I'm glad that my experiences differ. When there's double digit players, they cannot all be party leader. I don't know what the "secret sauce" was that my tables tended to get that, and have large helpings of abnegation, but they did.

The issue is the fighter can't do those things.

Agreed - for those who a) *want* their Fighter do be able to interact with those things; and b) if "balance" isn't styled like ShadowRun, where "contributing", especially noticeably, could ruin spotlight balance.

You mentioned Harry Potter (in the context of a character that sounds interesting and yet hopelessly ill-suited for D&D)

How would someone who does not understand muggle culture be ill suited to exploring the remains of another unknown culture?

There is no special tool fighters can use that a wizard cannot.

Other than high BAB, high HP, good fort save… and probably tools that are probably unique, like multiple AoO (oh, look, it's those reactions you mentioned) or whirlwind attack or great cleave.

The ShadowRun Street Samurai doesn't feel special because he's the only one who can engage the combat minigame - he feels special because he engages it *so much better* than everyone else.

I won't deny that it's a different feel. But do you really want to deny the other characters the ability to interact with the mundane world, or just let the Fighter do so better?

(I don't think anyone but me wants something truly magical)

Here's the thing (and this might seem crass). I'm not concerned for people who know how to optimize. Sure, an expert can get a lot out of a fighter or tone down a wizard to fit a weaker group.

I'm concerned for the newbie. The one without that system knowledge, who comes into it thinking that they'll be a strong and powerful warrior...and aren't. Because 90% (exaggerated, but not much) of the system is a trap for them. The one who unwittingly picks a "broken" class and doesn't have the knowledge to tone it down (and so overshadows people without intending to). The one who doesn't realize that you have to jump through a dozen hoops just to keep in the same game, or the one who doesn't realize that you have to consciously anti-optimize to stay back with the party.

So, since "Wizard" has the lowest floor (at least in 3e), how do you propose buffing them to make them more noob friendly?

I personally find the self-hobbling "wizards" (and druids, and ...) to come across (intentionally or not) as condescending. "Sure," it seems to say, "I could solve that problem with a wave of my hand, but I'll let you lesser beings muddle along until you're totally stuck, then I'll swoop in and solve things." It's very easy for that to come across as someone "generously" offering a huge golf handicap. It's the confidence that no matter what you do, you can't compete unless they let you. And that's horrible, horrible game design and a recipe for disaster.

So, were playing a perfectly balanced game, like golf or MtG, but my player skills let me win more or less guaranteed unless I give you a handicap. My brother regularly played MtG 1-on-3 at his lunch table (and usually won).

So, when the game is balanced, yet someone is obviously superior, what do you suggest?

Then, if you have an answer to that question, are you suggesting making RPGs enforce mechanical equivalence, and using *only* your answer to the above, and not mechanical differentiation, to balance player skill at the table?