The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[Quertus]

@Cluedrew

So, I've been trying to tease this apart, and hold it in my senile mind long enough to post it, but I think that the m/c divide may be an issue with confusing physics & mechanics. What do I mean by that?

Well, by definition, muggles have to follow the laws of physics. Personally, I believe most Wizards follow the laws of physics, too - just their physics has an expanded playbook - but that's another debate. The important part is, by definition, muggles obey physics.

But that isn't the same as following the rules.

Suppose the rule is, "by default, you get one action, and no ability to react to the actions of others".

People can easily imagine ways that magic, which can "ignore physics" might be able to break that rule. But, when they conflate that game mechanic rules with physics, they get it in their head that a muggle cannot break that rule when, in reality, someone with the physical skills / combat training / whatever is the one who should have the *easiest* time breaking / being the exception to that rule.

Does that make any sense at all? And, if so, could it be responsible for the phenomenon you are investigating?

[Man_Over_Game]

On a related note… Are the colors in MtG really balanced? Do people complain about color balance, or just the balance of individual cards?

Individual balance between colors is a real.concern. Black, for instance, cannot remove enchantments or artifacts. Red cannot remove enchantments. Blue has weak creatures. Green lacks instants that don't target artifacts or friendly creatures.

People do not consider black weak, despite it having a major weakness.

Even if a Wizard-type in a TTRPG had a major weakness, people would still play them. The problem I have with Fighter-types is that their weakness is half of the game (Roleplaying).

I've tried playing around the Fighter's problems, and it's enough for me to never play one again. Sure, I can Roleplay being scary, but what's that compared to a Cause Fear spell? Sure, I can forage for my own food in the wilds, but Goodberry sustains a group of people with no effort. No matter how hard a Fighter might try to makea difference out of combat, a caster can always do it better.

Eventually, it just felt like it'd be better if I didn't try.

The weakness of a Wizard is supposed to be their low health and armor, but the latest edition of DnD has Wizards earn about 25% less HP than Fighters, and most tanking builds incorporate casting levels for the defensive spells that become available by doing so. Even a Fighter becomes a better Fighter by being part mage.

However, a Wizard becomes less of a Wizard by being part warrior. Which says a lot. Of course, this is all very specific to DnD 5e, but considering that's the most popular TTRPG at the moment, it's more likely to be relevant to the most number of people (and people who visit this forum).

[Kyutaru]

Individual balance between colors is a real.concern. Black, for instance, cannot remove enchantments or artifacts. Red cannot remove enchantments. Blue has weak creatures. Green lacks instants that don't target artifacts or friendly creatures.

People do not consider black weak, despite it having a major weakness.

Though even these tropes are not common throughout all of Magic. Depending on era, or if you play Vintage, some of the rules have been broken before. Black has the Phyrexian Tribute and Quagmire Druid, Red gets Chaos Warp that can handle any permanent, Blue has had some of the strongest creatures in the game before such as Leviathan, Green gets the Beast Within that can handle any permanent as an instant, they even gave White and Red a counterspell. And of course none of these really matter when colorless can do everything now, even stuff none of the other colors can do themselves.

Similar to how D&D 1e is such a different beast from its later editions, time has a way of screwing with the balance of games.

#bringback2e

[Quertus]

Individual balance between colors is a real.concern. Black, for instance, cannot remove enchantments or artifacts. Red cannot remove enchantments. Blue has weak creatures. Green lacks instants that don't target artifacts or friendly creatures.

People do not consider black weak, despite it having a major weakness.

Even if a Wizard-type in a TTRPG had a major weakness, people would still play them. The problem I have with Fighter-types is that their weakness is half of the game (Roleplaying).

I've tried playing around the Fighter's problems, and it's enough for me to never play one again. Sure, I can Roleplay being scary, but what's that compared to a Cause Fear spell? Sure, I can forage for my own food in the wilds, but Goodberry sustains a group of people with no effort. No matter how hard a Fighter might try to makea difference out of combat, a caster can always do it better.

Eventually, it just felt like it'd be better if I didn't try.

The weakness of a Wizard is supposed to be their low health and armor, but the latest edition of DnD has Wizards earn about 25% less HP than Fighters, and most tanking builds incorporate casting levels for the defensive spells that become available by doing so. Even a Fighter becomes a better Fighter by being part mage.

However, a Wizard becomes less of a Wizard by being part warrior. Which says a lot. Of course, this is all very specific to DnD 5e, but considering that's the most popular TTRPG at the moment, it's more likely to be relevant to the most number of people (and people who visit this forum).

Green has Naturalize, and technically could target its opponents' creatures with buffs. But, yes, the colors play differently (and generally work better together).

Role-playing? I don't think we're using that word the same way. Also, I'm not sure about "being scary", but Goodberry has a high opportunity cost that foraging for food does not.

EDIT:

#bringback2e

In addition to you displaying a more encyclopedic knowledge of MtG cards, gotta +1 this bit. 2e is best game ever.

[Man_Over_Game]

Role-playing? I don't think we're using that word the same way. Also, I'm not sure about "being scary", but Goodberry has a high opportunity cost that foraging for food does not.

I couldn't think of a better, succinct word to call it, but I mean for any scenario a character does stuff out of combat. Anybody can Roleplay, but a Fighter does nothing to assist in doing it productively. A Rogue gets some skills, a Bard can persuade people, but a Fighter only gains things that assist in combat (at least, with the newer editions).

Goodberry doesn't have that high of a cost. Level 1 spells aren't usually that hard to get in most editions it's in, and the casters who can get it are usually ones who can change what spells they prepare each day. That is, the only time it costs a Caster to get Goodberries is when the Caster feels that the cost isn't a problem. It'll never be a real problem for a Caster to have Goodberries.

Sure, that's a niche problem, but consider the kinds of things you'd expect a Fighter to be able to assist with in a non-combat scenario, using his Fighter-specific skillset:

• Intimidate people.
• Hunt for food.
• Track a target.
• Climb something.
• Carry something.
• Watch for danger
  

I'm not sure about how it is in other editions, but most of those are replicated in 5e as level 1 and 2 spells and done better. A 5e Fighter can only pick about 2-3 of those to do. A 5e Wizard starts level 1 with 6 leveled spells.

I could see a concern where the Fighter would be considered valuable if the Wizard ran out of resources, but I've seen more DMs view that more as a hazard than a goal.

[Max_Killjoy]

I couldn't think of a better, succinct word to call it, but I mean for any scenario a character does stuff out of combat. Anybody can Roleplay, but a Fighter does nothing to assist in doing it productively. A Rogue gets some skills, a Bard can persuade people, but a Fighter only gains things that assist in combat (at least, with the newer editions).

Goodberry doesn't have that high of a cost. Level 1 spells aren't usually that hard to get in most editions it's in, and the casters who can get it are usually ones who can change what spells they prepare each day. That is, the only time it costs a Caster to get Goodberries is when the Caster feels that the cost isn't a problem. It'll never be a real problem for a Caster to have Goodberries.

Sure, that's a niche problem, but consider the kinds of things you'd expect a Fighter to be able to assist with in a non-combat scenario, using his Fighter-specific skillset:

• Intimidate people.
• Hunt for food.
• Track a target.
• Climb something.
• Carry something.
• Watch for danger

I'm not sure about how it is in other editions, but most of those are replicated in 5e as level 1 and 2 spells and done better. A 5e Fighter can only pick about 2-3 of those to do. A 5e Wizard starts level 1 with 6 leveled spells.

I could see a concern where the Fighter would be considered valuable if the Wizard ran out of resources, but I've seen more DMs view that more as a hazard than a goal.

This is why in my long-ongoing hunt for a system, one of the requirements is that magic is a thing that characters can learn, and learning more of it takes more build resources, and its a tradeoff with being able to do other things; and another requirement is that magic enhances or bridges or offers alternatives with tradeoffs, it doesn't replace or negate.

[Kyutaru]

Sure, that's a niche problem, but consider the kinds of things you'd expect a Fighter to be able to assist with in a non-combat scenario, using his Fighter-specific skillset:

Just to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, that skillset pretty much amounts to the one Hercules sported. He found lots of ways to make use of "being strong and good at physical stuff" while still being the most famous hero in existence.

[Gallowglass]

Just to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, that skillset pretty much amounts to the one Hercules sported. He found lots of ways to make use of "being strong and good at physical stuff" while still being the most famous hero in existence.

Sure, but he lived in a world with a very permissive DM "Reroute the river to clean the stable? okay"...
... only pure martial encounters "Its a big lion! Its a big boar! Its a big bull!" ...
...and still managed to do some skill check challenges a normal fighter wouldn't have the skill ranks to do "charm the amazon queen into giving you her girdle!"...
...used class skills not in the fighter class set "who says poison use is a thief only thing?"...
... and occasionally added a spellcaster to his party to do what he couldn't "I need you to play your harp and put the doggie to sleep" "Its a lute" "whatever bard, just do it" ...
...And finally, exhibited multiple feat trails that a normal fighter would be forced to pick just one "I'm good with a club AND a bow!"

You know, in the Avengers comic book I always wished Hercules would grab Hawkeye's bow some time and just shoot the **** out of everybody and watch Hawkeye go all googly eyed.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, that skillset pretty much amounts to the one Hercules sported. He found lots of ways to make use of "being strong and good at physical stuff" while still being the most famous hero in existence.

Hercules is also a demi-god. For a DnD-esc Fighter to hit that fantastical level of power, you're talking about the end of several real-time years of playing.

The Fighter starts being redundant at level 1. "Hercules", the Fighter, finally catches up to those early level Wizard features around level 15 or so. But...now the Wizard doesn't really care. Not when he can teleport regularly or drop meteors from the sky.

Rather, if the Fighter at level 1 started out as useful as Hercules, how is the Fighter supposed to scale from there? At level 5, is he supposed to pull an Atlas and hold up the sky? WHere do you go from there?


There's no solution. Either the Fighter starts useless and fights an uphill battle that he never wins, or he starts out fantastic (just to be interesting compared to the Wizard) and never really does anything better or new.

[Gallowglass]

A Wizard might start out casting Goodberries, but he can sure do a lot more than that later on.

Goodberries?

your wizard is a druid. The pointy hat is a lie. You should've guessed from the brown bear "familiar".

*druid wizard looks uncomfortable and shifty*

*suddenly pulls out flaming acorns and starts tossing them at us while running away screaming "Magic missile! Magic missile!*

[Cluedrew]

@Cluedrew

Spoiler: [...]

Show

So, I've been trying to tease this apart, and hold it in my senile mind long enough to post it, but I think that the m/c divide may be an issue with confusing physics & mechanics. What do I mean by that?

Well, by definition, muggles have to follow the laws of physics. Personally, I believe most Wizards follow the laws of physics, too - just their physics has an expanded playbook - but that's another debate. The important part is, by definition, muggles obey physics.

But that isn't the same as following the rules.

Suppose the rule is, "by default, you get one action, and no ability to react to the actions of others".

People can easily imagine ways that magic, which can "ignore physics" might be able to break that rule. But, when they conflate that game mechanic rules with physics, they get it in their head that a muggle cannot break that rule when, in reality, someone with the physical skills / combat training / whatever is the one who should have the *easiest* time breaking / being the exception to that rule.

Does that make any sense at all? And, if so, could it be responsible for the phenomenon you are investigating?

That makes sense, a lot of sense actually. Especially considering how that reflects with mechanics in other types of games (particularly war games and strategy games that RPGs have their history in). Now for responsibility... I can't really say because I don't think like that. I feel like creative laziness ("Its magic[period goes here]") is a contributing factor plus the fact that one habits and conventions are established they are hard to break.

But I like this idea. I kind of gone from "How to solve this?" to "Why hasn't this been solved already?" when I realized that solving this problem is easy. OK not really easy, but way easier to solve than one would think just looking at D&D.

There's no solution. Either the Fighter starts useless and fights an uphill battle that he never wins, or he starts out fantastic (just to be interesting compared to the Wizard) and never really does anything better or new.

What? I mean completely ignoring the fact you have implicitly ruled out scaling down the wizard, you think that Hercules is as high as a physically-empowered character can go? You have heard of Dragon Ball right?

Not that making everyone absurdity powerful is the solution I would pick myself. But it is a solution in that it exists and it would solve that particular issue.

[Quertus]

I couldn't think of a better, succinct word to call it, but I mean for any scenario a character does stuff out of combat.

In combat vs out of combat utility, perhaps?

Anybody can Roleplay, but a Fighter does nothing to assist in doing it productively. A Rogue gets some skills, a Bard can persuade people, but a Fighter only gains things that assist in combat (at least, with the newer editions).

Anybody can roleplay. Anybody can also take actions in and out of combat. Fighters don't get many explicit buttons to push outside of combat. I guess it depends on how much your group likes player skills (I'm personally a fan) as to how much that matters.

Sure, that's a niche problem, but consider the kinds of things you'd expect a Fighter to be able to assist with in a non-combat scenario, using his Fighter-specific skillset:

• Intimidate people.
• Hunt for food.
• Track a target.
• Climb something.
• Carry something.
• Watch for danger
  

I know several "Fighters" IRL; I would trust them, on average, to about half that list.

However, they all have numerous *other* useful skills.

I'm not sure about how it is in other editions, but most of those are replicated in 5e as level 1 and 2 spells and done better. A 5e Fighter can only pick about 2-3 of those to do. A 5e Wizard starts level 1 with 6 leveled spells.

2e - the best RPG - gave everyone an increasing number of skills as they leveled. Yes, Fighters got slightly fewer, but they generally ruled the roost anyway.

I could see a concern where the Fighter would be considered valuable if the Wizard ran out of resources, but I've seen more DMs view that more as a hazard than a goal.

IMO (and in the opinion of Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named), that's backwards-thinking. Quertus lets the muggles attempt to solve problems using their infinite replenishable resources before allocating any of his valuable, limited resources to solving the problem magically.

I'm not quite as crazy as Quertus, but I fully agree that the cheaper solution is generally better. The limited, powerful resources should generally be the fallback plan if the unlimited resources prove inadequate.

This is why in my long-ongoing hunt for a system, one of the requirements is that magic is a thing that characters can learn, and learning more of it takes more build resources, and its a tradeoff with being able to do other things; and another requirement is that magic enhances or bridges or offers alternatives with tradeoffs, it doesn't replace or negate.

Hmmm... I'm still trying to figure out the difference between "teleporting inside or corroding the lock replaces" and "kicking in the door or having a man on the inside replaces". Also, trying to figure out the hate for my beloved "replacement" minigame.

+X to Y is boring. Handing the BBEG flowers and proposing to them is interesting. "You are my quest". At least, that's my opinion.

Hercules is also a demi-god. For a DnD-esc Fighter to hit that fantastical level of power, you're talking about the end of several real-time years of playing.

The Fighter starts being redundant at level 1. "Hercules", the Fighter, finally catches up to those early level Wizard features around level 15 or so. But...now the Wizard doesn't really care. Not when he can teleport regularly or drop meteors from the sky.

Rather, if the Fighter at level 1 started out as useful as Hercules, how is the Fighter supposed to scale from there? At level 5, is he supposed to pull an Atlas and hold up the sky? WHere do you go from there?


There's no solution. Either the Fighter starts useless and fights an uphill battle that he never wins, or he starts out fantastic (just to be interesting compared to the Wizard) and never really does anything better or new.

Fantastic to be interesting? Sure. Fantastic to be competent, or balanced? Hardly. In fact, at low OP, the 1st level Fighter is usually OP compared to the Wizard, in the editions of D&D I've played.

Could a 20th level Muggle* pull his own weight partying with a Wizard 20? No. He'd have already sniped all their foes, unseen, before Wizard got there. And was using ventriloquism and voices to answer the Wizard's Divinations (correctly, btw) after he replaced the Wizard's Divinations spell components with Foldier's crystals as a joke.

* A hypothetical, completely mundane** class
** Still gets WBL

Goodberries?

your wizard is a druid. The pointy hat is a lie. You should've guessed from the brown bear "familiar".

*druid wizard looks uncomfortable and shifty*

*suddenly pulls out flaming acorns and starts tossing them at us while running away screaming "Magic missile! Magic missile!*

Thank you for the laugh!

[Mechalich]

What? I mean completely ignoring the fact you have implicitly ruled out scaling down the wizard, you think that Hercules is as high as a physically-empowered character can go? You have heard of Dragon Ball right?

Not that making everyone absurdity powerful is the solution I would pick myself. But it is a solution in that it exists and it would solve that particular issue.

Well, even in the Dragonball case, there's limits to the game utility of power combat power. Bulma, despite being a completely normal human (nominally anyway), keeps being given stuff even as the power level accelerates to universe smashing because she's the only one with out-of-combat technical skills.

You could make a character in a TTRPG with the abilities: flies with lightspeed perfect maneuverability, immune to damage, auto-hits one target per round for infinite damage, and though they'd be utterly dominant in combat their ability to do things out of combat would still limit their ability to contribute to the game. The Hulk - who has most of these traits (he can't fly, but his ability to leap mountains mostly makes up for it) struggles to contribute to the Avengers when it's not time to smash, to the point that he spends a lot of his time converted into a completely different character with other traits in order to be useful.

'Hurting things' is only one sphere of gameplay, so no matter how good you are at it that's not going to be enough unless that's the only thing that ever happens in game. D&D was built out from tabletop wargames where that actually was true, and 1e and 2e AD&D had very few rules for what happened outside of combat aside from a very specific set of thief abilities so everyone could mostly share things ad hoc. Compare Baldur's Gate II, where the class and stats of your lead character are largely irrelevant, to Pathfinder: Kingmaker, where they matter a great deal and skill choice is essential for major challenges, to the point of influencing conversation options with the final boss. The central issue being that 'spellcasting' is sufficiently broad that is can be applied, with a little creativity, to pretty much any conceivable task (in a game like Mage: the Ascension, this is explicitly true). As a result even non-casters who are given a sphere of things to be good at, like the Rogue's stealth and skullduggery or the Ranger's wilderness lore are only good some of the time while the wizard's abilities are always useful. You don't have to balance power alone, you have to balance applicability.

A good comparison example is Aquaman. He's plenty good in a fight, can hold his own against other top-tier threats no prob, an he also has a set of ancillary powers on top of that, but those powers are only useful in an aquatic environment. On land he's just a big and tough dude. Meanwhile if you're Green Lantern, you're just as good if not better in a fight, but your power suite of conjure anything you can imagine is always useful. If you had to consider 100 randomly generated Justice Missions, and you're Superman drafting your team, okay, they'll be a handful where Aquaman is the definitive number one pick, but most of the time you're only picking him if you can think of anything better. Meanwhile, Green Lantern's always coming off the board with a high pick.

[Ignimortis]

That's kind of a loaded way of phrasing it.

Prefering a more low-key or grounded world is a preferance, and its just as valid as any other.

Imagine saying the same thing about say, Game of Thrones or even The Lord of the Rings, tremendously popular and succsesful fantasy works which do not incude omnipresent over the top super-powers.

Those things you mentioned don't have mages that can shape the world at a whim. Their fighters might not be fantastical...but their mages are so close to being real-world charlatans who have some secret knowledge about how things work, instead of reality-breaking shenanigans, that it doesn't matter.

Meanwhile D&D has always had fantastical mages, but struggled a lot with fantastical warriors. Since D&D is the ur-RPG, many of the systems that followed it had similar problems. As someone who, admittedly, hasn't played a lot of different systems (more or less D&D 3.5/4/5, PF, VtM, Shadowrun and a few heartbreakers based on D&D or ST), I notice this stuff in almost everything that doesn't presume explicitly that you're playing at a very specific power level or a very specific type of character.

D&D always had that AFAICR (3.5 was both the worst with the wizard/figher split and the best with focused list/martial adept split), VtM just makes everyone magical by default and it's pretty much fine. Shadowrun (at least 5e) has serious issues with Magicrun, but Awakened characters are less overpoweringly strong and more...easily versatile while not really losing strength compared to mundanes. I've been reading the Exalted 3e corebook and though I like what I see, it's explicitly magical and it's magic of the same type for everything, like Vampire, so it might not be the best solution for a more generic game.

[Florian]

@Ignimortis:

Try a slightly different perspective: The failure of the systems you mentioned is establishing the "mundane spectrum" first, then adding the "magical spectrum" with a hard barrier in-between those two (Magic/Cyber: Yes/No?) as a second layer on top of that.

The alternative is handling both on the same spectrum, possible with the result that we now would have a "hybrid spectrum" on top of that, depending on how we allow both to interact.

Spells in D&D map to their own 0 to 9 spectrum, which has no correlation whatsoever to other elements, be it BAB, skill points and so on. The only time that worked was within the premisses of the original game and setting, with the massive post-apo, Dying Earth vibe of magic being completely forgotten knowledge and spells being the equivalent of getting your hands on the physical print-out of a random wikipedia page (mostly thru dungeon delving).

Other system have a parallel growth on both spectrums, including identical caps. In short, while a trained fencer and a mage pumping power into a "sword of air" spell will advance in parallel, a trained fencer using a "sword of air" spell will beat them both.

[Cluedrew]

+X to Y is boring. Handing the BBEG flowers and proposing to them is interesting. "You are my quest". At least, that's my opinion.

I really hope that there is a longer story behind this. Is there?

As for the main idea itself I fall into the camp of the middle way. Which is to say I like open ended rules that lie between no rule for something and a push button option. I have found these in Fate (might be some in Fudge) and Powered by the Apocalypse. There are probably others. But I will explain it by example, an Apocalypse World hack's Go Aggro variant (or intimidate skill in D&D terms, I can't remember which one it was).

So the move basically worked like this: when you threaten someone with leverage and they believe you will do it roll, on a strong hit they have (incentives) to give in or just do if they are a NPC and on a weak hit they have smaller incentives to give in. Actually I might be mixing several moves in my head but this illustrates my point anyways. Also some other points but I will be skipping over those points as they are different topics.

Those incentives are very well defined. Some of them are completely defined in mechanical terms, the softest is a debuff that has a defined effect but the duration is a bit open to interpretation. That part is mechanically defined. What is not defined is what is leverage. The standard example is a big weapon you can hurt them with. But other things work, like a big weapon you can hurt someone they care about or the ability to impose sanctions against their organizational or childhood secrets you could reveal to the world.

This is the best place for me because no rules... well in role-playing you can get something from nothing and I have done text base role-playing with no rules at all. But if I am going to use rules those should provide something. Defining everything means you get situations where not only what you can do is defined, but the how you can do it. And that gives you a button you can push. In the middle, you have given me a tool I can do something with, but left the how I use it open. And that is the sweet spot for me. (I could go on trying to pin down the exact thresholds, but I feel this give the general point.)

Also did you see my other reply to you? It came in at an awkward time just before yours and possibly out of sight so I could see it being missed.

Well, even in the Dragonball case, there's limits to the game utility of power combat power. Bulma, despite being a completely normal human (nominally anyway), keeps being given stuff even as the power level accelerates to universe smashing because she's the only one with out-of-combat technical skills.

Yes, I mean I wouldn't just port Dragonball but if I had to try and make a fighter that could contribute with a level 20 wizard I would scale things that high. Through in the ability to carry someone while moving at absurd speeds and you have an effective replacement for teleport. Or go a different direction and the fighter can spend 15 minutes to set up a protected shelter that can fit 20 people, provides cover and magic protection* to those inside of it.

* Yes, without being magic itself. This breaks the "only counter to magic is more magic" rule and I believe this is a good thing.

[Bohandas]

[QUOTE=Mechalich;23869346]'Hurting things' is only one sphere of gameplay,[/url]

What we really need is to expand the limits of what's being hurt by them, and change them from the just guy that fights people, into the guy that fights people, and smashes down walls and doors, and uproots trees, and who cuts holes on the spacetime continuum for quick travel.

[Cluedrew]

'Hurting things' is only one sphere of gameplay,

What we really need is to expand the limits of what's being hurt by them, [...].

I prefer to extent the limits of what you can do with physical power. Simple things include better athletics for getting around. Enchanting is out but creating high quality goods by hand still seems appropriate. If you would stretch a little massage therapy is kind of physical, maybe they could use that as an out-of-combat healing option? (Leaning on HP as a energy as well as any actual wounds to make it less mystic.

Although I do remember a conversation where we created "wish-complete" abilities for each archetype and the martial's was destroy anything. So that the hurt more method could also work.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yes, I mean I wouldn't just port Dragonball but if I had to try and make a fighter that could contribute with a level 20 wizard I would scale things that high. Through in the ability to carry someone while moving at absurd speeds and you have an effective replacement for teleport. Or go a different direction and the fighter can spend 15 minutes to set up a protected shelter that can fit 20 people, provides cover and magic protection* to those inside of it.

* Yes, without being magic itself. This breaks the "only counter to magic is more magic" rule and I believe this is a good thing.

I like this idea.

[Talakeal]

Well, even in the Dragonball case, there's limits to the game utility of power combat power. Bulma, despite being a completely normal human (nominally anyway), keeps being given stuff even as the power level accelerates to universe smashing because she's the only one with out-of-combat technical skills.

You could make a character in a TTRPG with the abilities: flies with lightspeed perfect maneuverability, immune to damage, auto-hits one target per round for infinite damage, and though they'd be utterly dominant in combat their ability to do things out of combat would still limit their ability to contribute to the game. The Hulk - who has most of these traits (he can't fly, but his ability to leap mountains mostly makes up for it) struggles to contribute to the Avengers when it's not time to smash, to the point that he spends a lot of his time converted into a completely different character with other traits in order to be useful.

'Hurting things' is only one sphere of gameplay, so no matter how good you are at it that's not going to be enough unless that's the only thing that ever happens in game. D&D was built out from tabletop wargames where that actually was true, and 1e and 2e AD&D had very few rules for what happened outside of combat aside from a very specific set of thief abilities so everyone could mostly share things ad hoc. Compare Baldur's Gate II, where the class and stats of your lead character are largely irrelevant, to Pathfinder: Kingmaker, where they matter a great deal and skill choice is essential for major challenges, to the point of influencing conversation options with the final boss. The central issue being that 'spellcasting' is sufficiently broad that is can be applied, with a little creativity, to pretty much any conceivable task (in a game like Mage: the Ascension, this is explicitly true). As a result even non-casters who are given a sphere of things to be good at, like the Rogue's stealth and skullduggery or the Ranger's wilderness lore are only good some of the time while the wizard's abilities are always useful. You don't have to balance power alone, you have to balance applicability.

A good comparison example is Aquaman. He's plenty good in a fight, can hold his own against other top-tier threats no prob, an he also has a set of ancillary powers on top of that, but those powers are only useful in an aquatic environment. On land he's just a big and tough dude. Meanwhile if you're Green Lantern, you're just as good if not better in a fight, but your power suite of conjure anything you can imagine is always useful. If you had to consider 100 randomly generated Justice Missions, and you're Superman drafting your team, okay, they'll be a handful where Aquaman is the definitive number one pick, but most of the time you're only picking him if you can think of anything better. Meanwhile, Green Lantern's always coming off the board with a high pick.

This really seems to be an argument against one note characters rather than martial characters.

I agree that one note characters are bad, is anyone really arguing for them?

Pulp heroes aren't just fighters, they are leaders, detectives, thieves, poets, charmers, trackers, scientists, alchemists, doctors, tinkers, artists, athletes, and a million other mundane skills that are non-magical but still denied to 3.X fighters.

Those things you mentioned don't have mages that can shape the world at a whim. Their fighters might not be fantastical...but their mages are so close to being real-world charlatans who have some secret knowledge about how things work, instead of reality-breaking shenanigans, that it doesn't matter.

Meanwhile D&D has always had fantastical mages, but struggled a lot with fantastical warriors. Since D&D is the ur-RPG, many of the systems that followed it had similar problems. As someone who, admittedly, hasn't played a lot of different systems (more or less D&D 3.5/4/5, PF, VtM, Shadowrun and a few heartbreakers based on D&D or ST), I notice this stuff in almost everything that doesn't presume explicitly that you're playing at a very specific power level or a very specific type of character.

D&D always had that AFAICR (3.5 was both the worst with the wizard/figher split and the best with focused list/martial adept split), VtM just makes everyone magical by default and it's pretty much fine. Shadowrun (at least 5e) has serious issues with Magicrun, but Awakened characters are less overpoweringly strong and more...easily versatile while not really losing strength compared to mundanes. I've been reading the Exalted 3e corebook and though I like what I see, it's explicitly magical and it's magic of the same type for everything, like Vampire, so it might not be the best solution for a more generic game.

Right.. but why is it the low key martials that are holding the system back and not the over the top mages?

Personally I believe that, as with most things, the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

3.X is particular bad in its implementation, martials suck too much even when there are no casters around, and casters can break the game in infinite ways even if they don't have to worry about muggle tag-alongs.

Yes, I mean I wouldn't just port Dragonball but if I had to try and make a fighter that could contribute with a level 20 wizard I would scale things that high. Through in the ability to carry someone while moving at absurd speeds and you have an effective replacement for teleport. Or go a different direction and the fighter can spend 15 minutes to set up a protected shelter that can fit 20 people, provides cover and magic protection* to those inside of it.

* Yes, without being magic itself. This breaks the "only counter to magic is more magic" rule and I believe this is a good thing.

Does this help anything though?

Those feats are still only mid-level spells; Goku's only really amazing ability is that he can punch stuff real good, and an uber-charger fighter can already do that.

[Cluedrew]

I like this idea.

Thanks, an idea is forming for a Soldier class, with sub-classes for military specializations. (I like more focused flavour in class and "military" is just focused enough while being kind of flexible, they don't even have to actively be in the military.) Thing is I don't know enough about D&D 5e (the edition I am most likely to play again) to do it properly.

Does this help anything though?

Those feats are still only mid-level spells; Goku's only really amazing ability is that he can punch stuff real good, and an uber-charger fighter can already do that.

I think it helps, but that is not to say it solves the problem in one fell swoop. Really the only way to do that would be to make a martial class that covers all the martial archetypes and is as stupid powerful as a wizard at max level. But I'm interested enough in that power level to develop whole new classes for it. Actually I'm not sure if I am motivated enough to the first 10 levels of such a class. I should put that work into my homebrew system that has kind of stalled out recently.

Still I think it could be done, figure out things that can be done with effectively limitless strength and physical coordination beside hitting things. Throw Charisma in there or non-magical applications of Intelligence and Wisdom to fill up and gaps and I see no reason why you couldn't do it, especially one who knows more about D&D than I.

And if I am in a different system where I only have to measure up to an incredibly powerful wizard instead of an absurdly powerful one, all the better.

[Ignimortis]

Right.. but why is it the low key martials that are holding the system back and not the over the top mages?

Personally I believe that, as with most things, the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

3.X is particular bad in its implementation, martials suck too much even when there are no casters around, and casters can break the game in infinite ways even if they don't have to worry about muggle tag-alongs.

Low-key martials are holding the system back more than the over-the-top mages because they're the standard many people expect. I think that if you remove the Fighter from the D&D paradigm, and replaced it with a high-power martial, I'd say the outcry would be much higher than if you removed the Wizard and replaced them with something closer to focused mages of 3.5 - most people play spellcasters thematically anyway.

Actually, about 3.5...it's both the worst D&D has ever been in that regard, and the best. CHB is terrible - we have the lowest of lows with Fighter, Monk and Paladin, and the highest of highs with Cleric, Druid and Wizard. But the splats can remedy that - take focused mages and martial adepts instead of PHB classes, and suddenly the gap is much, much closer, especially if the mage players don't try and hyperoptimize to get some sort of access to the usual T1 tricks. Suddenly, nobody is good at everything, but everyone is good at something, and you can work together to become more than the sum of your parts.

[Kyutaru]

Honestly, the biggest issue with spellcasters today is that they assume they have free access to all magic in the book. I greatly miss the books of 2e that blatantly spelled out for the stubborn or stupid that spell availability is 100% the DM's decision. There were blatantly overpowered magic spells in 2e that DMs regularly nerfed or disallowed. There were also countless nigh useless magic spells that served little to no purpose outside of roleplaying some cantrip that a wizard once did in a book. Why would you ever need a magic spell that makes your clothes dry??

If more DMs took charge and limited casters the way they should be limited, this whole quadratic wizard thing would be nonsense. One way to force people to use less optimal spells is by making optimal magic EXCEEDINGLY RARE AND SPECIAL! Having access to Haste is not a given. It's a trump card, your best tool in the arsenal. Heck, many NPC wizards don't even have the top end spells despite having Intelligence scores higher than you. Clearly they are aware of how broken they are so why don't they have them? Availability is not universal.

But since RAW it sort of is, and all DM Discretion gets treated like homebrew, people will continue to complain about what casters are capable of doing. It gets worse every time a splatbook comes out with some stupid feat or new spell that makes the problem worse. Heck, even 3rd edition had to come out with a new player's handbook to explicitly nerf spells people were abusing that the DM could have done on his own. Far too much hand holding is this age of D&D where tabletop gamers expect the rules to be as ironclad as a war game.

Rant aside, I think forcing your wizards to specialize and preventing them from being able to use the standard swiss army knife of spells that every wizard ever takes ever no matter what is the simplest solution because it literally requires no effort. Player wants to cast something insane? Tell him no.

Magic the Gathering had this problem many times. Some new spell comes out that has crazy interaction potential with another spell. So don't allow the same deck to have both spells. They didn't ban cards overly often but they did split them up by COLOR, by SPEED, and by BLOCK. Sorry, that overpowered spell you want to use from Alpha set is incompatible with the modern sets in this format. You're free to use them in a no-holds-barred Vintage match but here we respect common decency. Here we have limits and rules and you can't just take any 60 cards in the game and use them together.

[Rhedyn]

Idk this is a pretty D&D specific problem that any other RPG solves if they try.

For most generics, once things get to "Superhero" every one is a superheroes. You don't run into the issue of people having Super Magic while the other guy is good on his BMX.

[Kyutaru]

Idk this is a pretty D&D specific problem that any other RPG solves if they try.

For most generics, once things get to "Superhero" every one is a superheroes. You don't run into the issue of people having Super Magic while the other guy is good on his BMX.

Part of the problem is that spellbooks keep expanding with hundreds of options while Fighters don't get additional feat slots and can only use two weapons at a time. The more spells you add to the game, the stronger the wizard gets. The more weapons or feats you add to the game, the more OPTIONS the fighter has to choose from but they are still mutually exclusive.

Stop letting casters take the best of everything. Control their power limits yourself. My player's illusionist is not even ALLOWED to have Fireball. If he wants to cast evocation nukes, he can use shadow magic. Those spells are reserved for invokers. They are their trump cards. No you may not splash them.

2e did a great job limiting casters with school opposition. Choices had to be made and you were even forced to prepare spells of your own school. Opening that up to being a free-for-all was not so wizards could cherry pick the strongest stuff but so that players didn't feel artificially handicapped by the rules to create the characters they wanted. You want to be a Necromancer who uses Illusions? Oh sorry you can't. That's what removing the limits was meant to cure. Not enabling your wizard to become an Archmage.

[Talakeal]

Low-key martials are holding the system back more than the over-the-top mages because they're the standard many people expect. I think that if you remove the Fighter from the D&D paradigm, and replaced it with a high-power martial, I'd say the outcry would be much higher than if you removed the Wizard and replaced them with something closer to focused mages of 3.5 - most people play spellcasters thematically anyway.

I suppose that's one way to put it.

So, using that logic, would you also say that pizza parlors and hamburger joints are holding back dining because they are far more popular and therefore plentiful than more niche foods like Ethiopian restaurants?

Actually, about 3.5...it's both the worst D&D has ever been in that regard, and the best. CHB is terrible - we have the lowest of lows with Fighter, Monk and Paladin, and the highest of highs with Cleric, Druid and Wizard. But the splats can remedy that - take focused mages and martial adepts instead of PHB classes, and suddenly the gap is much, much closer, especially if the mage players don't try and hyperoptimize to get some sort of access to the usual T1 tricks. Suddenly, nobody is good at everything, but everyone is good at something, and you can work together to become more than the sum of your parts.

That's certainly an opinion. I certainly have zero interest in playing any of those classes, and I don't think I am alone there.

Also, can you really say that it is more balanced than 4E?

[Jama7301]

L

Actually, about 3.5...it's both the worst D&D has ever been in that regard, and the best. CHB is terrible - we have the lowest of lows with Fighter, Monk and Paladin, and the highest of highs with Cleric, Druid and Wizard. But the splats can remedy that - take focused mages and martial adepts instead of PHB classes, and suddenly the gap is much, much closer, especially if the mage players don't try and hyperoptimize to get some sort of access to the usual T1 tricks. Suddenly, nobody is good at everything, but everyone is good at something, and you can work together to become more than the sum of your parts.

Splat diving is awful. Having to get Complete Mage to just switch Wizards for Focused Specialists, and Book of 9 Swords for Martial Adepts, plus the core 3 books for general rules and creatures, that's a big ol' pain. It's one of the worst things about 3.5.

[Kyutaru]

Splat diving is awful. Having to get Complete Mage to just switch Wizards for Focused Specialists, and Book of 9 Swords for Martial Adepts, plus the core 3 books for general rules and creatures, that's a big ol' pain. It's one of the worst things about 3.5.

Heh, but it's kind of the point. The company exists to sell books. They're going to find ways to make you buy them.

[Jama7301]

Heh, but it's kind of the point. The company exists to sell books. They're going to find ways to make you buy them.

Sure. Sell them books. I'm just one person who got tired of it, haha.

I just don't like how excessive it felt in 3.5. Started to feel like a chore to find anything interesting and useful.

Edit: Idly, I wonder how many more useful spells and magic-focused classes/PrC were in the splats versus helpful martial things. I'm sure it's skewed by spell lists being a lot larger than like, Feat lists, but I'm sure there's some metric that seems like a reasonable comparison.

[awa]

Sure. Sell them books. I'm just one person who got tired of it, haha.

I just don't like how excessive it felt in 3.5. Started to feel like a chore to find anything interesting and useful.

Edit: Idly, I wonder how many more useful spells and magic-focused classes/PrC were in the splats versus helpful martial things. I'm sure it's skewed by spell lists being a lot larger than like, Feat lists, but I'm sure there's some metric that seems like a reasonable comparison.

I very much agree with this even when I owned the books actually finding the stuff I wanted was a huge chore. If the book was owned by the dm or another player the odds of me using something from it dropped to practically nill. Worse was when a dm decided to ban stuff outside of books he owned fine in theory but when i only owned books he didn't it became problematic. Thank god for the internet that compiled all these things in sort-able lists without that I would have been in trouble.