The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[Quertus]

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

There are numerous stories; none of them mine. C'mon, you think a) I've had a GM who could run with that, let alone at the same time as b) a party that wouldn't find that an anticlimactic ending or c) that I'd **** over my party that way? I might try it in a 1-on-1 game, but I prefer double-digit players. The quote is from "Kuba & the two strings"

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.)

This sounds like one of those places where our desires differ. Some day, my senile mind may think to make a thread about this, but don't hold your breath.

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.

Hmmm...

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.

That's fair. It's a little bigger than I said. Hopefully, once we get good muggles, we can break the D&D habits of limiting their Wizards to comparative mediocrity.

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.

I'm glad you like it. I agree that it should be "easy" to fix. I just don't like muggles (I like my characters Magical), so I'm not the one who should be dictating how they can contribute.

'Hurting things' is only one sphere of gameplay,

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.

While I don't disagree for balance, I know some will for not being mundane.

It's a lack of creativity that people cannot make useful mundanes.

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.

IRL, my mom beat cancer with massage, so I'd say it's not a stretch.

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

Because that's not how those words are usually used?

When there was inequality in the party, Obi Wan doesn't complain that Annikan can do so much more than he can, and is "holding him back". When the class has both gifted and special needs students, and the teacher has to teach to the slowest learner, they don't complain that the gifted kids are holding the class back. When I'm acting beside, eh, Christina Ricci, I don't complain that her acting skills are "holding me back".

The Fighter not being able to do anything but fight could be argued to be "holding D&D back" in numerous ways.

• D&D has impetus to *not* develop more detailed noncombat minigames;
• The D&D Wizard catches flak for being "too powerful", despite even the 3e Wizard only being mediocre compared to Wizards in other games / genre / media;
• D&D adventures are forced to coddle the enemic Fighter, and cannot "be all that they can be", in either power or scope.

If all the Fighter can do is fight things, then you cannot make a module that doesn't involve fighting things, else you make the Fighter an invalid character. That sounds like holding the game back to me.

[Talakeal]

When there was inequality in the party, Obi Wan doesn't complain that Annikan can do so much more than he can, and is "holding him back". When the class has both gifted and special needs students, and the teacher has to teach to the slowest learner, they don't complain that the gifted kids are holding the class back. When I'm acting beside, eh, Christina Ricci, I don't complain that her acting skills are "holding me back".

The Fighter not being able to do anything but fight could be argued to be "holding D&D back" in numerous ways.

• D&D has impetus to *not* develop more detailed noncombat minigames;
• The D&D Wizard catches flak for being "too powerful", despite even the 3e Wizard only being mediocre compared to Wizards in other games / genre / media;
• D&D adventures are forced to coddle the enemic Fighter, and cannot "be all that they can be", in either power or scope.

If all the Fighter can do is fight things, then you cannot make a module that doesn't involve fighting things, else you make the Fighter an invalid character. That sounds like holding the game back to me.

At no point was I ever, at all, defending a character who can "only fight".

This was a conversation about having viable non-magical characters, not about one-dimensional ones.

For example, in my current campaign the party sorceress is by far the most one dimensional person in the party as she has taken nothing but direct damage spells, while everyone else has a plethora of non-combat skills and abilities being mundane.


Edit: And, to refute your acting analogy, bigger and more over the top does not mean better or more skilled. If I was acting alongside someone like Calculon from Futurama I could easily say that he is holding me back by forcing me to abandon all subtlety in my performance to keep up with his bombastic overacting.

[Man_Over_Game]

If all the Fighter can do is fight things, then you cannot make a module that doesn't involve fighting things, else you make the Fighter an invalid character. That sounds like holding the game back to me.

I don't necessarily like the idea of making the Fighter only about combat, but I am saying that's what the DnD trend has been.

That's not necessarily saying that the Fighter Player can't do anything out of combat, but that the Fighter part of the Fighter Player isn't adding anything to the non-combat elements of the game. Anything a Fighter can do out of combat, anyone else can do better. The Fighter is limited to the default, which is a pretty low bar.

In order for intra-party balance to be a thing, there are two options:

1. Have the Wizard would be the opposite, having only non-combat abilities and not providing anything for combat.
2. Have the Fighter provide as much non-combat utility as the Wizard does.

Option 1 is the same problem that you're describing (now describing Wizards), so that's out.
Option 2 *might* be possible, but it would require a lot of creativity from the developers, and a lot of pulling back on what Wizards are capable of.

If Non-combat was just as important as Combat, it almost seems impossible to make Fighters balanced with Wizards. We've gotten the balance for combat down in 5e, now it's time to start balancing around everything else.

[Cluedrew]

This sounds like one of those places where our desires differ. Some day, my senile mind may think to make a thread about this, but don't hold your breath.

That would be an interesting thread Quertus and Cluedrew Talk About Their Differences. I'd try it, although there have been sections of other threads dedicated to it before.

For instance I am not going to go over how what the two of us consider magical is quite different.

It's a lack of creativity that people cannot make useful mundanes.

Quick question: Are we talking about creativity in design or creativity in use? Creativity in design, of course. But for creativity in use you need tools to be creative with and some times you just don't have enough of those.

[Kyutaru]

Anyone remember how d20 Modern had six classes, one for each attribute?

You're not a fighter, you're just a strong guy. If you want to be a fighter, take weapon feats.

Some of these arguments sound like that's what people would prefer we have. An attribute that defines your character instead of the class.

[CharonsHelper]

Anyone remember how d20 Modern had six classes, one for each attribute?

You're not a fighter, you're just a strong guy. If you want to be a fighter, take weapon feats.

Some of these arguments sound like that's what people would prefer we have. An attribute that defines your character instead of the class.

It was a different beast. Not comparable to D&D style classes.

Ignoring the mediocre balance (Fast hero was the best; at least dipping at least a level for the +3 defense boost was VERY common - and Smart/Charismatic heroes were bad - though admittedly, I remember when Naruto d20 built upon them and made them reasonably balanced by giving Strong/Tough/Dedicated bonus feats & making skills VERY important) you weren't expected to actually stick with one class. The system assumed a LOT of dipping, and that you'd jump into the advanced classes starting at level 4.

[Mechalich]

There are certainly other versions of the D20 system that have less disparity than D&D 3.X. Star Wars Saga, for one, is a lot better. The Soldier class gets a bunch of useful out of combat skills like Mechanic and the Jedi class has the least skill points of any class in the game. Force powers, because of the weird way Saga's hybrid skill system works, are massively OP at low-levels and stupidly weak at high levels but actually fairly balanced in the mid-levels. They are, however, just as vulnerable to utility gain via power bloat in the same way spells are, which seems to be a recurring problem.

5e actually manages to preserve a greater amount of balance through the curious fact of simply having less books due to its pathetic publishing schedule. The problem is that this is not a path to profitability and most game systems, if given the chance to spew out new out new character options, will always take it.

[Quertus]

One thing that I think has been overlooked in this thread is the beauty of the Fighter class. It's right there in the name: "Fighter". It's actually a brilliantly designed class, optimal for those who only care about war gaming, and want to zone out during the "talky bits" (ie, everything else). If they wanted a primarily combat character with a little more range, they ought to telegraph it similarly, by calling the class a "Ranger".

Really, the Fighter doesn't need to be changed. The übercharger can contribute to combat as much as needed. If you want to contribute outside combat, you should pick a different muggle class. So, what's needed is that Muggle class.

-----

Many threads ago, I suggested the idea of making all characters "gestalt", as an inherent part of character creation. The idea was, you choose how your character contributes in combat as one side of the gestalt, and how your character contributes outside of combat as the other side of the gestalt. Arguably, you could break it down into smaller bins, like "survival", "Exploration", "talky bits", etc. Perhaps "how" should be replaced with "what tools your character comes with to".

I like the idea of different packages having different point costs, and the players getting to mix and match as they see fit. Want to be a Fighter / Sherlock Holmes with Cthulhu-style ritual magic? Or a combat Mage who relies on stealth out of combat? It's all mix and match class features.

At no point was I ever, at all, defending a character who can "only fight".

But that *is* the Fighter, which is part of how he could be argued to be holding D&D back. Here's not weak (see übercharger), he's just one-dimensional.

This was a conversation about having viable non-magical characters, not about one-dimensional ones.

I suspect those might be related, to your standards of "viable", at least. I think that the pure war gamer might be happy with the übercharger.

For example, in my current campaign the party sorceress is by far the most one dimensional person in the party as she has taken nothing but direct damage spells, while everyone else has a plethora of non-combat skills and abilities being mundane.

Cool. You should probably post those abilities here, for reference, for those who cannot imagine a muggle being useful outside combat.

Edit: And, to refute your acting analogy, bigger and more over the top does not mean better or more skilled. If I was acting alongside someone like Calculon from Futurama I could easily say that he is holding me back by forcing me to abandon all subtlety in my performance to keep up with his bombastic overacting.

Is Christina Ricci known for "bombastic overacting"? I picked a name at random, despite the fact that I may not have seen one of her movies since Adam's Family.

I don't necessarily like the idea of making the Fighter only about combat, but I am saying that's what the DnD trend has been.

That's not necessarily saying that the Fighter Player can't do anything out of combat, but that the Fighter part of the Fighter Player isn't adding anything to the non-combat elements of the game. Anything a Fighter can do out of combat, anyone else can do better. The Fighter is limited to the default, which is a pretty low bar.

In order for intra-party balance to be a thing, there are two options:

1. Have the Wizard would be the opposite, having only non-combat abilities and not providing anything for combat.
2. Have the Fighter provide as much non-combat utility as the Wizard does.

Option 1 is the same problem that you're describing (now describing Wizards), so that's out.
Option 2 *might* be possible, but it would require a lot of creativity from the developers, and a lot of pulling back on what Wizards are capable of.

If Non-combat was just as important as Combat, it almost seems impossible to make Fighters balanced with Wizards. We've gotten the balance for combat down in 5e, now it's time to start balancing around everything else.

ShadowRun certainly has some interesting ideas on that…

That would be an interesting thread Quertus and Cluedrew Talk About Their Differences. I'd try it, although there have been sections of other threads dedicated to it before.

For instance I am not going to go over how what the two of us consider magical is quite different.

It is? I don't remember that. Darn senility.

Quick question: Are we talking about creativity in design or creativity in use? Creativity in design, of course. But for creativity in use you need tools to be creative with and some times you just don't have enough of those.

Ostensibly, creativity in class design. But it's bigger than that.

"Tools" could come from your class, yes. They could also come from the world-building step. Or adventure design. Or from the character's background. Or from player skills. Or from literal tools.

If a Fighter literally has *no* tools to work with, it represents a failure at every level.

[Ignimortis]

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?

Not sure if this analogy works out, TBH. But seeing as D&D has had a large influence over western perception of Fighters, it could be? You go to pizza parlors and hamburger joints because you know what you're gonna get for your money, even if the pizza is a bit too greasy and the hamburgers have a tendency to fall apart as you eat them. It's just less hassle and you're not worried you won't like it on some level anyway.

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.

Well, the way I see it, there should be a default Fighter - but it should be more of a Rogue/Fighter gestalt. No Sneak Attack, keep everything else, give Mettle and all good saves. Durable, can shake off magic like it's nothing, very competent in lots of mundane activities - both combat and noncombat. If the game also has ritual-style casting for everyone, it should be totally fine.

And a Wizard-style class that's very versatile can be a 6-level caster with tons of slots to spare, but slow progression and less access. You pay in power for being a generalist, that sort of thing. Kinda like Ultimate Magus in some way - your versatility and ability to go all day are almost unparallelled, but you're lagging behind specialists who can only do things of one nature.

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

Not really, no. But my personal feeling of 4e is that it went a few steps too far in homogenization of things. Having everyone work off the same AEDU standard might not have been the best idea. Perhaps letting everyone have that A(t-will), but spreading E(ncounter) and D(aily) between classes would be better. Something like...Fighters get AE and some U, Rogues get AD and some U, casters get a very weak A, but more of E and D, and also some U?

[*]The D&D Wizard catches flak for being "too powerful", despite even the 3e Wizard only being mediocre compared to Wizards in other games / genre / media

Wait, what? I mean, yes, media wizards are often more powerful than a wizard from, say, levels 1 to 10? But I don't think I've ever seen a wizard who would be as incredibly powerful as a 20-th level D&D 3e Wizard. The dude is functionally immortal, can create new planes of existence and reshape reality with a word.

[Arbane]

I don't necessarily like the idea of making the Fighter only about combat, but I am saying that's what the DnD trend has been.

Yup.

Every time a Fighty-type shows traces of being interesting it gets peeled off into a new class, leaving the pristine blandness of The Fighter.

[Quertus]

Wait, what? I mean, yes, media wizards are often more powerful than a wizard from, say, levels 1 to 10? But I don't think I've ever seen a wizard who would be as incredibly powerful as a 20-th level D&D 3e Wizard. The dude is functionally immortal, can create new planes of existence and reshape reality with a word.

I am referring to the results of this thread, where the Playground concluded that the 3e Wizard was rather mediocre.

The 3e Wizard cannot reshape reality. What they can do was argued to be matched or exceeded by…

D&D (2e)
WoD M:tA
MtG
Harry Potter
Marvel
DC
Gurps
M&M
H&H
Heroes/Champions
Disney
LotR
Suggsverse
Paradox (homebrew)
Exalted
Scion
Druids of Shannara (?)
world of synibarr (?)
Wizards of Earthsea (?)
wings of fire (?)
Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha
Sailor Moon
Various other Anime

… and numerous others that I never added to the list.

Personally, I would have crossed off Harry Potter and GURPS, but some have claimed that their Wizards are able to be on par with D&D Wizards.

[Morty]

Anyone remember how d20 Modern had six classes, one for each attribute?

You're not a fighter, you're just a strong guy. If you want to be a fighter, take weapon feats.

Some of these arguments sound like that's what people would prefer we have. An attribute that defines your character instead of the class.

That's about the only good idea I'm willing to give D20 Modern credit for, as it otherwise accomplishes the impressive feat of making D&D 3E look good in comparison.

Of course, the execution is flawed due to being connected with the six attributes. But if the attributes were actually functional...

Regarding the "should fighters only fight" discussion - in another system, if I want to create a character who is only good at combat and nothing else, it's my choice. In D&D, the choice is made for me when I pick the fighter class.

Moreover, in those other systems (Dark Heresy, CofD, Exalted and GURPS, just to name those I've played) I can be hopeful that once combat starts, I'll actually be scary. In D&D, depending on edition, I'll be mediocre, just plain bad or reasonably competent but not more so than other party members.

Well, I suppose in Dark Heresy there's a chance I'll be overshadowed by a psyker. And it is possible to leave yourself with a beatstick that can't do much else if you're not careful about picking your homeworld, background and role.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I want to examine this idea that "Fighters can't do anything but fight" in 5e.

Spoiler: 5e

Show

I'll choose the Champion subclass as a worst-case, being the most fighting focused subclass. I'll do both with Feats and without, as feats are optional.

Fighters get (in both cases):
* Supreme SAD. Their attack stat is also their armor stat, and none of their class features depend on anything else. So they need STR or DEX, and CON (like everyone).
* The same number of skill proficiencies as everyone else except "skill-focused" classes. Their class skills are a relatively wide spread (including some social and some exploration). A custom background (not a variant rule) can give any two others they want or 1 + thieves tools.
* Extra Ability Score Improvements at level 6 and 14.
* Champion: Gets minimum half-proficiency to any STR/DEX/CON check and can jump further (weee!).

As a purely SAD class, a Fighter can cap his attack stat by level 6, or can have up to 3 feats (starting variant human). So if he takes a combat feat as a variant human he can still cap his attack stat by level 6. That gives him 5 ASIs or feats throughout the rest of the game. As a result, fighters can choose to participate in almost any aspect of the game that does not involve directly casting spells. A fighter can be (just using class features and feats): an expert investigator (Prodigy: Investigation + high INT). A scholar of things long gone (Skilled for extra proficiencies, high INT). An expert tracker (survival + high WIS). He can even learn to cast some spells for utility (Ritual Caster: Wizard/Magic Initiate) without compromising his combat power.

In a featless game, he's able to spread his ASIs out and be well-rounded without compromising his combat efficiency. With the low cap on things like DCs, that's nearly as good as having expertise.

So a 5e fighter can participate in most areas of the game unless he chooses to pigeonhole himself. Unlike 3e, where all those extra feats had to go to combat stuff just to stay relevant, a 5e fighter is already relevant and so can (if he chooses) use that to spread out laterally. And without the high "must have this gear to participate" requirements, they can afford to pick up quirky or utility items as they come available instead of having to dump all resources into upgrading combat gear.

This also accords with my experience. Fighters, like everyone else, can participate everywhere if they don't pigeonhole themselves. The issue is more one of perception ("I'm a fighter so all I can do is fight"), but that's not the system's fault. Sure, they don't have very many "it just happens" buttons. But then again, neither does anyone else for lots of areas. In fact, the one class that gets real "I win" buttons for exploration (the ranger) is panned for that very fact.

People want to have to actually engage with those things instead of just bypassing them. Even spells rarely give the ability to just trivialize substantial challenges with minimal cost--teleport is no longer safe much of the time, planeshift is less precise than a portal, and even things like fly require concentration, thereby imposing both substantial risk and opportunity cost. There aren't wands of knock available in every hamlet, and preparation limits are substantially more binding, as are spell slots.

[Max_Killjoy]

I am referring to the results of this thread, where the Playground concluded that the 3e Wizard was rather mediocre.

The 3e Wizard cannot reshape reality. What they can do was argued to be matched or exceeded by…

… and numerous others that I never added to the list.

Personally, I would have crossed off Harry Potter and GURPS, but some have claimed that their Wizards are able to be on par with D&D Wizards.

First, depends on how you define "reality". At one end of the definition spectrum, I'm reshaping reality by typing up this post and hitting SUBMIT REPLY. At the other end of the definition spectrum, nothing anyone of any power level in any setting ever does can reshape reality because the ability make any change they make is part of the reality, and the objective unchangeable "layer" is simply deeper. It can be argued effectively that even WOD Mages cannot change reality, because the ability to change "reality" is just part of reality.

Second, in a system like HERO (and I think GURPS), the ability of any character to "change reality" is entirely dependent on the campaign-specific setting details, and campaign-specific character-build rules.

[Bohandas]

The fighter's also got good HD and therefore is good for tanking even out of combat. Need someone to jump to the bottom of that deep gorge with the sheer walls? Fighter. Need someone to wade across that lava? Fighter. etc.

[Quertus]

First, depends on how you define "reality". At one end of the definition spectrum, I'm reshaping reality by typing up this post and hitting SUBMIT REPLY. At the other end of the definition spectrum, nothing anyone of any power level in any setting ever does can reshape reality because the ability make any change they make is part of the reality, and the objective unchangeable "layer" is simply deeper. It can be argued effectively that even WOD Mages cannot change reality, because the ability to change "reality" is just part of reality.

Second, in a system like HERO (and I think GURPS), the ability of any character to "change reality" is entirely dependent on the campaign-specific setting details, and campaign-specific character-build rules.

While I will not deny that these levels are or can be interesting to discuss, I think things like "chemistry now exists" counts as changing reality for not only most definitions of changing reality, but for the one I'm using.

Actually, even if you accept that it is in the nature of reality to be changed, I think that changing some of its attributes (say, there is no law of conservation of mass in *my* house) still counts as "changing reality".

Most Wizards cannot change how muggles interface with the fundamental laws of physics; a few (such as WoD Mages) can. Those are the ones that I claim actually can change the laws of reality.

[Max_Killjoy]

The fighter's also got good HD and therefore is good for tanking even out of combat. Need someone to jump to the bottom of that deep gorge with the sheer walls? Fighter. Need someone to wade across that lava? Fighter. etc.

I'd consider "the best way down this sheer towering cliff is for me to jump down" and "I can just wade across this lava" as pretty well into "the magical" in most fantasy settings.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd consider "the best way down this sheer towering cliff is for me to jump down" and "I can just wade across this lava" as pretty well into "the magical" in most fantasy settings.

Those are a bit exaggerated for most of my games, but the fighter certainly does work best for a lot of more grounded "unavoidable damage" scenarios. Consider a complex trap where the off switch is on the other side of a gas-filled room. Being in the room imposes CON saves against poison and deals damage, and it will take several rounds to access the button and turn it off.

Who do you send? Unless you have someone who is immune to poison entirely (rare), you send either the Fighter or the Barbarian (depending on which you have). Bonus if they're a dwarf or other resistant race (or you cast protection from poison on them). Both have big HD and CON-save proficiency. If they're resistant, the barbarian has a bigger health pool (d12 HD) but can't self-heal. The fighter has a slightly smaller health pool (d10) but can Second Wind for 1d10+level. If it's really far away or needs lots of actions, the fighter can Action Surge for extra movement or an extra Object Interaction action. IMO, the fighter wins that one.

The rogue can get there quick, but doesn't have CON-save proficiency and has a small health pool. The casters are even more limited, although you could burn a dimension door or misty step at the cost of a 2nd or 4th level slot. Still not going to help you survive turning it off.

[Cluedrew]

Really, the Fighter doesn't need to be changed. The übercharger can contribute to combat as much as needed. If you want to contribute outside combat, you should pick a different muggle class. So, what's needed is that Muggle class.

My current idea for this is the soldier class that mixes in some army themed utility abilities. This narrows the flavour of the fighter a bit, but hopefully in a way that it is a bit easer to build off of while still keeping the same down to earth theming.

Honestly "just fights" is a very narrow concept. Not to say there aren't characters that fit into it as I have played at least one but maybe only one. I almost played two, but I feel it is hard to describe Kelly who ended up negotiating and working with the other side in every combat he was ever in as "only fighting". So why dedicate an entire class to it. That is kind of like having a wizard class who only got direct damage single target spells.

So I think the basic martial class should be broadened (assuming we keep classes at all) with the option to specialize back down though options and just not using whatever extras they would get naturally. Or if the fighter is not the basic martial* class anymore then the fighter could still be that specialist, but the thing is "that muggle class" doesn't seem to exist anywhere. Some space between the rogue, fighter and maybe a bit of ranger would do it, maybe even consuming one or two of those classes.

* Here I am going to be explicate that it means martial as in body, not martial as in war. I know what it normally means but in this context it really means not a caster.

It is? I don't remember [talking about how we are different]. Darn senility.

Perhaps I am over stating what has happened, but little things like how your magical is for me "there is an app for that" and that does not feel like magic to me. Something mastered to such convenience begins to feel like science.

Ostensibly, creativity in class design. But it's bigger than that.

That makes sense. I will say that "universal tools" (things any character or character archetype can draw on) cannot be a complete solution either because other character will have that and their special tools.

[Bohandas]

I'd consider "the best way down this sheer towering cliff is for me to jump down" and "I can just wade across this lava" as pretty well into "the magical" in most fantasy settings.

A 200 foot or farther drop does about 70 points of damage on average (and longer drops do no additional damage), a fighter with no constitution modifier will on average have more hitpoints than this by level 13. And a fighter with a constitution bonus will exceed this value several levels earlier.

Lava damage bottoms out at 2d6 damage per round (and maxes out at 20d6 points per round, in the case of total immersion); a high level fighter could easily survive walking through very shallow lava, and would on average take more than one round to be killed by total immersion as per the calculation earlier (total immersion does about 70 damage per round).

[Max_Killjoy]

A 200 foot or farther drop does about 70 points of damage on average (and longer drops do no additional damage), a fighter with no constitution modifier will on average have more hitpoints than this by level 13. And a fighter with a constitution bonus will exceed this value several levels earlier.

Lava damage bottoms out at 2d6 damage per round (and maxes out at 20d6 points per round, in the case of total immersion); a high level fighter could easily survive walking through very shallow lava, and would on average take more than one round to be killed by total immersion as per the calculation earlier (total immersion does about 70 damage per round).

I understand that.

It doesn't make it any less "magical" (that is, fantastic, supernatural, superhuman, beyond normal bounds, etc) in most fantasy settings.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I understand that.

It doesn't make it any less "magical" (that is, fantastic, supernatural, superhuman, beyond normal bounds, etc) in most fantasy settings.

Right. I happen to fully agree that such a thing is fantastic/beyond Earth-human bounds.

But this sub-conversation is less about whether fighters can be fantastic or whether fighters can only fight. It's evidence that the second part is false, not that the first question is false.

[Pleh]

I did read about the first 6 pages, but when pages are being added faster than you can keep up with them, at some point you have to just jump in if you want to say something.

To the original post (which feels to me to be a high concept level of questioning how martial/caster balance SHOULD be handled within the context of how it has been in the past), a point I haven't seen many people really emphasizing is the problem of normalcy (probably already has a better name I'm not aware of).

Basically, magic is an essential self contradiction if you aren't very careful with your definitions. Magic is commonly defined as, "not mundane," but that is an unhelpfully vague definition. Traveling to space on a rocket (IRL) is neither a particularly mundane experience, nor is it magical beyond a metaphorical sense. A slightly more useful definition is that Magic is, "power that is not natural."

This has far more concrete meaning, but now we've stumbled into the problem of asking, "what is nature/natural?" Oh, boy. Existentialism, ho! I mean, hopefully, you already see this is headed towards the age old, "insufficiently understood science is basically magic" and the question of, "if supernatural forces are a fundamental force of our cosmos, then aren't they better described as Natural rather than Supernatural?"

This gets into the problem that magic isn't really Magic, it's only perceived as magic. If magic really is more about how we perceive things that are *Unusual, then it really doesn't make much sense for there to be a stark Martial/Caster disparity (beyond the caster just knowing more things in very specific subjects).

But for many players, we still WANT there to be magic. ACTUAL magic, not just superstitious misunderstandings of science. However, trying to do this brings back into question exactly what magic is if it isn't just misunderstood science? If magic isn't actually the manipulation of natural laws of the cosmos, then what else can it be? If we say it, "isn't natural," does that mean it's coming from another plane of existence? This is where we simply have to get creative because not having a specific answer is never going to work. However, the answer we choose is going to greatly inform the Martial/Caster balance.

All this is important because it girds the question of whether a caster or a martial should be on the same playing field. In PheonixPhyre's headcanon (doing my best to paraphrase), all creatures possess and interact with the Aether that permeates the universe, allowing them to become spellcasters or superheroes. The fact that magic (I'm speaking in the high concept, since it fills that role) is accessible equally to each creature allows them all to play on the same level, even when their application of magic manifests differently.

In FR, there's the Weave which is sometimes the essence of a divinity. This sort of cosmology will tend to more support that casters are going to have a strict advantage to noncasters as they have backdoor access to the universe's servers and can hack the system at will.

It's going to come down to preference, and Max_Killjoy has a great point that there is a self-contradicting desire propagating through the gamespace to have wizards with max power being equally matched by fighters with human limitations: the 4th level fighter rivaling the 9th level wizard. It's essential in considering the question of martial/caster balance to understand what balance point you're aiming for so you can avoid these sorts of paradoxes.

Quertus has described a game where anyone being able to do anything as being preferred. I'd probably find that kind of game boring because if I wanted an RPG where I could do anything, I'd really not need rulebooks or dice and I can just have a freeform RPG with my friends where we just talk about what happens.

However, I always liked the Knock spell partly because it was suboptimal, but it always seemed like the right kind of suboptimal, in a strange way. Charonshelper mentioned that a HardCounter:DoorLock feature in a game should be balanced so players have a tactical decision to make (quick and noisy, or slow and stealthy), but 3e already has a cost to the Knock spell: you're spending a spell slot on it. A much bigger problem in 3e was how stupidly generous they were with how often you have your spells. I don't need to tell anyone here about the number of ways to optimize your spell slot reserve. The limits on spell slots really should have been a sacred cow in that game's development and getting around that limit should have been almost blasphemy. These are the most powerful tools in the game. It should cost something to be using them with frequency, such as the opportunity to use *other* spells (which is my preference for Character Resource Limitations: The Borderlands Conundrum, having too many things you want and can't have them all at once).

This demonstrates MY preference for RPGs. There's a pair of fine lines on either side of it. On the one hand, if everything is easy to do and is fixed with simple hard counter mechanical win buttons, I don't feel like I played a game at all as much as I simply answered a friend's question. But on the other hand, you don't want to get stuck in a railroad game trying to guess the one and only acceptable solution to a twisted and contrived scenario. I often want to play the skillzy/sneaky type character, knowing that limited access to magic and suboptimal combat potential is playing the game on hard mode. Going back to Quertus's Locked Door scenario, I like to be the character who could pick the lock, but stops to consider if it's better to look for other entrances first. I might have a Knock spell stored on a magic device, but I know that using it means I don't have it later unless I find another device.

For me, games are defined by the balance of player limitations and options. If there's no limits or no meaningfully alternative options, there isn't a game I really want to play.

And this is where the 3e Martial/Caster disparity often rubs me the wrong way. It's not a problem that Casters are supreme, it's that the PHB presents the core classes as if they're just incomparable equivalents. This is plainly wrong after you learn about the system and feels deceptive.

My thesis:
Disparity isn't wrong. Miscommunicating with the players about the game experience is wrong and that makes it critical that we establish first what the game experience is supposed to be, and then explaining the cosmology that justifies this experience.

[Talakeal]

Not sure if this analogy works out, TBH. But seeing as D&D has had a large influence over western perception of Fighters, it could be? You go to pizza parlors and hamburger joints because you know what you're gonna get for your money, even if the pizza is a bit too greasy and the hamburgers have a tendency to fall apart as you eat them. It's just less hassle and you're not worried you won't like it on some level anyway.

Has it? Guy who just fights and does nothing else is, in my experience, pretty rare in fiction outside of big dumb mooks.

Well, the way I see it, there should be a default Fighter - but it should be more of a Rogue/Fighter gestalt. No Sneak Attack, keep everything else, give Mettle and all good saves. Durable, can shake off magic like it's nothing, very competent in lots of mundane activities - both combat and noncombat. If the game also has ritual-style casting for everyone, it should be totally fine.

And a Wizard-style class that's very versatile can be a 6-level caster with tons of slots to spare, but slow progression and less access. You pay in power for being a generalist, that sort of thing. Kinda like Ultimate Magus in some way - your versatility and ability to go all day are almost unparallelled, but you're lagging behind specialists who can only do things of one nature.

Not really, no. But my personal feeling of 4e is that it went a few steps too far in homogenization of things. Having everyone work off the same AEDU standard might not have been the best idea. Perhaps letting everyone have that A(t-will), but spreading E(ncounter) and D(aily) between classes would be better. Something like...Fighters get AE and some U, Rogues get AD and some U, casters get a very weak A, but more of E and D, and also some U?.

Fully agree here.

Wait, what? I mean, yes, media wizards are often more powerful than a wizard from, say, levels 1 to 10? But I don't think I've ever seen a wizard who would be as incredibly powerful as a 20-th level D&D 3e Wizard. The dude is functionally immortal, can create new planes of existence and reshape reality with a word.

Well, I would consider Archmages in WoD and Planeswalkers in Magic more powerful than D&D mages, but their magic isn't nearly as "convenient" as they can't pull off the infinite loops that 3.X wizards can do.

Which, as I said, is the real problem with 3.X casters; magic is just so easy to acquire and pull off and spell slots are just so easy to regain or circumvent.

First, depends on how you define "reality". At one end of the definition spectrum, I'm reshaping reality by typing up this post and hitting SUBMIT REPLY. At the other end of the definition spectrum, nothing anyone of any power level in any setting ever does can reshape reality because the ability make any change they make is part of the reality, and the objective unchangeable "layer" is simply deeper. It can be argued effectively that even WOD Mages cannot change reality, because the ability to change "reality" is just part of reality.

Second, in a system like HERO (and I think GURPS), the ability of any character to "change reality" is entirely dependent on the campaign-specific setting details, and campaign-specific character-build rules.

I would like to point out that this is a purely semantic quibble.

Is Christina Ricci known for "bombastic overacting"? I picked a name at random, despite the fact that I may not have seen one of her movies since Adam's Family.

Aside from liking her in Addam's Family I don't really know much about Chrsitina Ricci's acting.

My point was that an overactor is a better comparison to a 3.X caster than a talented actor. 3.X casters are known for overshadowing the party (and ignoring large portions of the rules) by simply throwing the right spell at it; there is generally no room for player skill, subtlety, or teamwork in such a situation.

For example, imagine the best ranger player in the world trying to show off his wilderness skills when the party wizard insists on just teleporting the party directly to the dungeon and back.

One thing that I think has been overlooked in this thread is the beauty of the Fighter class. It's right there in the name: "Fighter". It's actually a brilliantly designed class, optimal for those who only care about war gaming, and want to zone out during the "talky bits" (ie, everything else). If they wanted a primarily combat character with a little more range, they ought to telegraph it similarly, by calling the class a "Ranger".

It was originally called "Fighting-Man" i.e. soldier. IRL soldiers have way more versatile abilities than the 3.X fighter.

The idea that a class should be purely limited to a literal reading of its name is really dumb. Its not fun game-play, and it isn't even slightly realistic. How many people in real life, or even fiction protagonists, do you know that can only do one thing? They don't have hobbies, they don't have domestic skills, they don't have ancillary skills related to their job, they don't have a general education, they just do one role over and over and over again.

But that *is* the Fighter, which is part of how he could be argued to be holding D&D back. Here's not weak (see übercharger), he's just one-dimensional.

I suspect those might be related, to your standards of "viable", at least. I think that the pure war gamer might be happy with the übercharger.

Yeah, even in combat fighters kind of suck. It takes way more system mastery to build a competent combatant out of a fighter than it does a caster, and even then he is going to be a one trick pony in combat; if his opponent is immune to his trick (which is very common) the fighter will be twiddling his thumbs in combat as well as out.

For example, charge requires that your target be no closer than 10', no further than double your movement, that you can draw an unobstructed straight line with no characters, obstacles, or rough terrain in the way, and that your enemy is susceptible to HP damage inflicted by a physical attack. Flying, climbing, and swimming foes create further challenges. While I am sure it is possible to build a character who can subvert some of these restrictions, again it takes a hell of a lot of system mastery (and the DM allowing you to combine abilities from a ton of non-core books) to create a moderately powerful one-note character.
Yay!

Cool. You should probably post those abilities here, for reference, for those who cannot imagine a muggle being useful outside combat.

Its nothing special, just the same type of abilities as D&D has but with better implementation.

Letting the heal skill actually heal damage, removing arbitrary "you must be this tall to ride" rules like only rogues being able to disarm traps above DC 20 or huge creatures being immune to tripping, remove the requirement for certain feats to even attempt certain skill tricks or combat maneuvers, give everyone more feats and skill points, remove penalties for cross class skills, create a wider variety of alchemical items and technological gizmos, allow crafters to create mundane equipment with special qualities based on design and materials, that sort of thing.

But that *is* the Fighter, which is part of how he could be argued to be holding D&D back.

Again, the initial discussion was about people wanting to play non-magical characters holding the game back. Not about one note characters or the specific 3.X implementation of the fighter class as holding the game back.

And, one could argue, it didn't. I am no fan of ToB, 4E, or 5E, but they clearly did not let the 3.X design of the fighter hold the game back in future releases.

[FaerieGodfather]

The problem comes about when a certain subset of gamers adamantly demands that in even the most very fantastic magic-laden worlds, their martial characters must be utterly totally completely free of any magic, fantastic, or supernatural mojo, with all their abilities 100% based on skill, grit, will, effort, and normal human capability -- and able to keep up with the most fantastic capabilities of the spell-casting characters.

Do not forget that, at the same time, those spellcasters must not be restricted in any fashion from a ruleset in which they are already notoriously superior to martial characters who have access to these supernatural abilities.

[Quertus]

soldier
Honestly "just fights" is a very narrow concept.

So I think the basic martial class should be broadened (assuming we keep classes at all) with the option to specialize back down though options and just not using whatever extras they would get naturally. Or if the fighter is not the basic martial* class anymore then the fighter could still be that specialist, but the thing is "that muggle class" doesn't seem to exist anywhere. Some space between the rogue, fighter and maybe a bit of ranger would do it, maybe even consuming one or two of those classes.

* Here I am going to be explicate that it means martial as in body, not martial as in war. I know what it normally means but in this context it really means not a caster.

Has it? Guy who just fights and does nothing else is, in my experience, pretty rare in fiction outside of big dumb mooks.

Consider the "Fighter" to be "war gamer's first RPG character". And it may continue be their umpteenth character. And that's OK. But let them "prestige" out at will to "well-rounded" (more on this below).

Perhaps I am over stating what has happened, but little things like how your magical is for me "there is an app for that" and that does not feel like magic to me. Something mastered to such convenience begins to feel like science.

Ah. No, that definition is "Wizard", to me. Especially a Wizard like Quertus.

Magical is almost the opposite. It's the flavor of a Sorcerer, or Tinker Bell.

A Wizard is a muggle, who has magic slapped on after the fact; magical *is* magic, that may or may not have any muggle components. It's not "an app", it lives and breathes magic.

So, someone who is the flavor of "magical" that I want would look at the whole world like Wizards in Harry Potter look at muggle inventions. It would never occur to them to grab a brush, when they can just telekinesis their hair into place (or replace it with metal strands, or fire, or snakes). They would never think to sew clothes, when they can just Mystique shapeshifter into wearing clothes, or grow clothes on themselves, or cloak themselves in fire or dreams.

The kind of "magical" I want does not interact with the mundane world any more than a Fighter interacts with the magical world.

That makes sense. I will say that "universal tools" (things any character or character archetype can draw on) cannot be a complete solution either because other character will have that and their special tools.

Two things.

First, completely agree, universal tools aren't everything - in fact, "only universal tools" is more likely railroading than anything I'd consider good. So, it's a complete failure on *all* fronts if the Fighter has 0 tools to work with. A "good", well-rounded "Ranger" in a "good" game would have tools from most if not all of those categories.

Second, agreed, anyone could use those tools. That's why the "dedicated Fighter player" feels free to zone out instead of engaging those tools, because they have no responsibility to push their "them-specific" buttons. And, if they start to enjoy other minigames, then they always have the *option* to engage using these shared tools.

This is optimal for getting some people involved in RPGs, without making them feel pressured.

Quertus has described a game where anyone being able to do anything as being preferred.

Well, no. A game where everyone has the option to interact with every minigame is preferable, IMO. And there's a huge difference between my preference and "everyone being able to do everything".

I mean, "it's a murder mystery - I can't interact with that, so I may as well go home" sounds like a fail state to me. Do you disagree?

ShadowRun is a great example of strong niche protection through not letting people play the game - except in combat, where the solo street samurai gets to shine *in contrast to* the other characters.

Myself, I'd want a game where everyone gets to shine *in contrast to others*, if "shining" was even a (mechanical) thing.

Personally, I care less about such micro-shining, and more about everybody getting "participation" status. Then, if the players want, they can make things in the range from parties like my BDH party, where everybody "shines" almost every encounter that they're in, to the party of fail that rarely succeeds at anything, let alone gets to shine. But everyone in any parties in those ranges almost always earns a participation ribbon - unlike in ShadowRun.

I'd probably find that kind of game boring because if I wanted an RPG where I could do anything, I'd really not need rulebooks or dice and I can just have a freeform RPG with my friends where we just talk about what happens.

And this has nothing whatsoever to do with my preferences. Which are actually much closer to what you've described as yours.

Well, I would consider Archmages in WoD and Planeswalkers in Magic more powerful than D&D mages, but their magic isn't nearly as "convenient" as they can't pull off the infinite loops that 3.X wizards can do.

MtG mages absolutely can go infinite. I first did it in Ice Age, IIRC.

My point was that an overactor is a better comparison to a 3.X caster than a talented actor. 3.X casters are known for overshadowing the party (and ignoring large portions of the rules) by simply throwing the right spell at it; there is generally no room for player skill, subtlety, or teamwork in such a situation.

This hearkens to the "Fighter holding the game back" issue: in order to have things that the lowly Fighter can interact with at all, the mighty Wizard can just solo everything. If the Fighter was playing at the Wizard's level, the GM might be able to do good scenario design, to make something where they can all be involved, and reasonably cooperate.

Then again, the Bizarro World experiences you've related don't exactly indicate that you play with many people who actually understand the concept of "teamwork" very well.

Hmmm… which has forced me to look at my decades of gaming with numerous groups, and ask myself, "what does 'teamwork' look like? Does power level, or disparity of power level, affect the likelihood of teamwork?"

In short, IME, neither of those affect it significantly; they just affect how teamwork (or problems thereof) will play out. And, therefore, which style of blinders will be able to ignore the underlying problems.

For example, imagine the best ranger player in the world trying to show off his wilderness skills when the party wizard insists on just teleporting the party directly to the dungeon and back.

And he *can* show off his skills:

R:"You teleported us to the wrong tomb again."
W:"How can you tell?
R:"Well…"

or

R:(sees/smells signs of what's living the tomb)"(very quietly) you need to teleport out of here right now"

The idea that a class should be purely limited to a literal reading of its name is really dumb. Its not fun game-play,

No, only having to engage the combat minigame *is* fun game-play for some players. That the name telegraphs that is just a funny bonus.

Yeah, even in combat fighters kind of suck. It takes way more system mastery to build a competent combatant out of a fighter than it does a caster, and even then he is going to be a one trick pony in combat; if his opponent is immune to his trick (which is very common) the fighter will be twiddling his thumbs in combat as well as out.

For example, charge requires that your target be no closer than 10', no further than double your movement, that you can draw an unobstructed straight line with no characters, obstacles, or rough terrain in the way, and that your enemy is susceptible to HP damage inflicted by a physical attack. Flying, climbing, and swimming foes create further challenges. While I am sure it is possible to build a character who can subvert some of these restrictions, again it takes a hell of a lot of system mastery (and the DM allowing you to combine abilities from a ton of non-core books) to create a moderately powerful one-note character.

The low-OP Fighter runs circles around the low-op Wizard, IME.

Its nothing special, just the same type of abilities as D&D has but with better implementation.

Letting the heal skill actually heal damage, removing arbitrary "you must be this tall to ride" rules like only rogues being able to disarm traps above DC 20 or huge creatures being immune to tripping, remove the requirement for certain feats to even attempt certain skill tricks or combat maneuvers, give everyone more feats and skill points, remove penalties for cross class skills, create a wider variety of alchemical items and technological gizmos, allow crafters to create mundane equipment with special qualities based on design and materials, that sort of thing.

You say "nothing special", but, tbh, that is certainly not something I would trust, well, *me* to do. Just saying.

[Talakeal]

Then again, the Bizarro World experiences you've related don't exactly indicate that you play with many people who actually understand the concept of "teamwork" very well.

Hmmm… which has forced me to look at my decades of gaming with numerous groups, and ask myself, "what does 'teamwork' look like? Does power level, or disparity of power level, affect the likelihood of teamwork?"

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.

[Cluedrew]

The kind of "magical" I want does not interact with the mundane world any more than a Fighter interacts with the magical world.
[...]
I mean, "it's a murder mystery - I can't interact with that, so I may as well go home" sounds like a fail state to me. Do you disagree?

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?

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.

[Max_Killjoy]

I would like to point out that this is a purely semantic quibble.

Not really, it's one of the major disconnects in these discussions. Before you answer whether someone can change reality, or should be able to change reality, you have to decide what's meant by "reality", and what amounts to "changing it".

[Mechalich]

Ah. No, that definition is "Wizard", to me. Especially a Wizard like Quertus.

Magical is almost the opposite. It's the flavor of a Sorcerer, or Tinker Bell.

A Wizard is a muggle, who has magic slapped on after the fact; magical *is* magic, that may or may not have any muggle components. It's not "an app", it lives and breathes magic.

So, someone who is the flavor of "magical" that I want would look at the whole world like Wizards in Harry Potter look at muggle inventions. It would never occur to them to grab a brush, when they can just telekinesis their hair into place (or replace it with metal strands, or fire, or snakes). They would never think to sew clothes, when they can just Mystique shapeshifter into wearing clothes, or grow clothes on themselves, or cloak themselves in fire or dreams.

The kind of "magical" I want does not interact with the mundane world any more than a Fighter interacts with the magical world.

You're talking about the difference between something that is innately magical versus something that utilizes magic. In D&D this is the difference between spell-like abilities and other special attacks/qualities and spellcasting, in other systems the boundary may be considerably more vague if it exists at all. Of course, in many cases the ability to utilize magic is also an inherent property that you have to be born with rather than something that can be trained.

From a game balance and mechanics perspective though, this doesn't really matter. Powers are powers and they do what they do and have whatever consequences that they have and you can wrap whatever fluff you need around the mechanics to justify suitable balancing measures. 'Requires extensive training' is a nice fluff justification for something mechanical like why the Jedi class in Saga edition only gets 2 class skills and the Soldier class gets 4, but the point is that the soldier gets more skills to make up for the extensive versatility of Force use that the Jedi gets (this doesn't necessarily work, because the skill system in Saga is weird, but that's at least the idea).

Trying to balance one group of characters getting a supernatural power that other people don't get by throwing in a bunch of weakness and other downsides in the bargain is one managerial tool in the design box. Classically, being a vampire means you're cursed with awesome, but you are still legitimately cursed in ways that do matter in gameplay.

Unfortunately, mandatory downsides are a tricky design element, especially when they aren't something as in line with classical tropes like 'vampires can't go out in sunlight' or 'cold iron hurts fairies.' If you try to impose a bunch of arbitrary restrictions on what players can or cannot do with their powers, the very first thing they are going to try and do are find exploits to mitigate them down to nothing. Worse, if you try to impose a restriction that is fluff mediated - well-known one being 'playing a drow means everyone hates you' the ambitious player quickly badgers their GM into ignoring this (White-Wolf had a history of trying to impose fluff-mediated restrictions on all kinds of things, it never worked).

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