How stronger would non-magic classes need to be to allow broad-non vancian magic?

[Great Dragon]

@OldTrees1: I'm not sure how to proceed from here.

Most of the time, I can usually figure out how to fit a Concept for a Character into an RPG.

Like your Goku in D&D example: Without the Tome of Battle, the choices are Monk (most likely Sunsoul), or maybe a homebrewed 5e Fighter: Eldritch Knight.

Goku might have been Monk/Warlock in 3x D&D. But, again - not fully there.
I agree that Goku as any kind of Caster other than maybe Sorcerer in 3x didn't fit the Character.

Sure, it's not going to be a perfect fit in either case, which means unhappy Player.

But I really can't do One Punch Man. Or Superman or Heck - even Nightcrawler.

On the ToB: the only thing that I can think of would be making those disciplines be Short Rest - but would not be any closer.

Powers that don't have any resource costs just don't really translate well.
Even Fighters are still limited by Action Economy per round. And I still tend to see ToB maneuvers as a type of magic, and therefore should have a resource cost. Even the Paladin's Auras have that cost.

To be clear. I was talking about where my imagination fails to allow me to author mechanics to instantiate those character concepts. Somewhere in the 11-16th level range I run into a writer's block with regard to making high level martial mechanics. Above that point I fail to even author mechanics for those character concepts.

I mean, short of giving a martial a 20' diameter (energy) Nova Blast (Equal to a Meteor Swarm) once a day, there's really not a lot I can do to make them nearly equal to Mages at 20th level, for comparing power.
(but, even then someone would complain that the mage can do that at ranged and they can't)

Currently in 5e

5 (1d8) +5 Ability +3 magic = 13 times 8 = 104 damage in a round compared to 160 damage if the enemy (figure 1,000 targets, max) failed their save or 80 halved before resistances are applied.
And at 20th level, even the Mooks have more then 150 hp each.

The mage can do that 160 damage spell once a day, and the fighter can do that 104 DPR once per encounter (short rest assumed) plus 52 average damage all day.

But, yeah. My imagination's failure and lack of ability to do the mechanics better means;
all I can do is use/modify what's there enough where you might not walk away from my table.

[Anonymouswizard]

Trying very hard to skate around this particular conversation without getting into edition war territory, but this is completely false, and a simple case of people being too turned off by the presentation of 4e to examine what it's actually doing (a thing that happens a lot).

Eh, people also misunderstand what a Defender's role is (I've seen people assume that they're 'high defence low damage', ignoring the required stickiness). There's also the idea of secondary roles, which should have been addressed in the PhB (the Fighter is very clearly a Defender with a secondary role of Striker, compared to the Paladin's Defender/Leader).

I think 4e would have sat with people a lot better if they'd instead had classes closer to sitting betweent he lines. So a Fighter can be a Defender or a Striker, or a Wizard can be a Controller or a Leader. I mean, it essentially had those, the Warlock springs to mind, but IIRC 4e didn't get to it's best point unitl you were running PHB1+PHB2 with some of the X Power supplements and potentially the campaign setting classes, because the additional powers allowed classes to branch out into additional roles.

Also, there was no Martial Controller, that really annoyed me. The Ranger was perfect for that, they could have been a shorter ranged controller who set down traps and lured monsters into them.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but a lot of classes were pushed into certain roles.

[Lanaya]

There's also the idea of secondary roles, which should have been addressed in the PhB (the Fighter is very clearly a Defender with a secondary role of Striker, compared to the Paladin's Defender/Leader).

That's the thing, it was. Page 52, right in the description of what roles are.
Different classes approach their role in different ways, and many classes include limited elements of one or more other roles as well. For example, both the fighter and the paladin are defenders, but the fighter adds some aspects of the striker to his repertoire, while the paladin has some abilities often associated with leaders, such as healing.

Now, yeah, there are some classes here and there that get pushed into one role. Making a ranger who isn't a striker is difficult at best, and maybe 4e would be better if that weren't the case. But that's not a change from other editions. I'm not saying 4e is perfect, I'm specifically arguing against the idea that it represents a regression from its predecessors. You can't make a leader rogue in 4e without doing some ridiculous amount of convoluted splat-diving, but you can't do that in any other D&D edition either.

[jjordan]

Ah, rational magic, where 'anythimng goes' is tossed aside for something that actually makes sense. I wish more games would use it(the only ones that do, to my knowledge, are Unknown Armies and games like Ars Magica).

Ars Magica is an interesting choice of examples. It deals with the question of magical power imbalances by taking magic users out of play for long periods of time as they delve into the research and practice needed to advance their skills. Players maintain a stable of characters so they can be assured of getting game time while their other characters are unavailable.

This, more than anything else, is how Ars Magica deals with the perceived imbalances. Which is not to say I don't admire the heck out of their magic system.

[OldTrees1]

@OldTrees1: I'm not sure how to proceed from here.

That might be because I am discussing rather than arguing.

I described what the root cause is, why it occurs, and the mechanism of how it occurs. I did this to help create empathy for both the player with the level capped concept and the author whose work failed to raise that level cap to the system's level cap. (It can be annoying to have a 5th level character in a 20th level group despite your sheet saying 20th level)

This is not an issue of balance. This is not an issue of power. It is an issue of flexibility. It is an issue of imagination limits. It is a consequence of two people with different limits to their imagination.

And progress can and has been made. Progress can happen faster while we understand the problem's mechanics.

Most of the time, I can usually figure out how to fit a Concept for a Character into an RPG.

Like your Goku in D&D example: Without the Tome of Battle, the choices are Monk (most likely Sunsoul), or maybe a homebrewed 5e Fighter: Eldritch Knight.

Goku might have been Monk/Warlock in 3x D&D. But, again - not fully there.
I agree that Goku as any kind of Caster other than maybe Sorcerer in 3x didn't fit the Character.

Sure, it's not going to be a perfect fit in either case, which means unhappy Player.

But I really can't do One Punch Man. Or Superman or Heck - even Nightcrawler.

So my examples were not in vain. You do see mismatch between the concepts supported in the abstract and the concepts supported mechanically once you reach higher level.

Hopefully you have also been reading HOW that mismatch occurs. Hopefully you are empathizing with me over the difficulty authors have with the limits of their imagination. I personally have stated the imagination limits of my own ability to create mechanics at higher levels. Hopefully you still empathize with those unhappy players. The players that had a concept, chose a RPG that the concept fit within, and then found a lack of supporting mechanics.

Knowing is half the battle.

Powers that don't have any resource costs just don't really translate well.
Even Fighters are still limited by Action Economy per round. And I still tend to see ToB maneuvers as a type of magic, and therefore should have a resource cost. Even the Paladin's Auras have that cost.

Sounds like we have a miscommunication. ToB maneuvers get expended. Spells get expended. Smites get expended. Fighter's attacks do not get expended despite only being allowed X actions each turn. Paladin Auras don't get expended nor do they have a duration that runs out. Some character concepts are more like Fighter's attacks & Paladin Auras than they are like ToB maneuvers, Barbarian Rages, or Paladin Smites. That distinction is what I usually label as "limited resources" to communicate the distinction those players cared about with regard to their character concepts they wanted to instantiate.

I mean, short of giving a martial a 20' diameter (energy) Nova Blast (Equal to a Meteor Swarm) once a day, there's really not a lot I can do to make them nearly equal to Mages at 20th level, for comparing power.
(but, even then someone would complain that the mage can do that at ranged and they can't)

This felt off topic.
1) I have been talking about flexibility not power.
2) I don't want to talking about any person to person conflict.
3) If you want to give martials an AoE effects, have you considered giving them Sweeping melee attacks (attack everyone in 3 squares) and either a Volley(dex) or Frag/Larger(str) ranged attacks? They are at least 10th level so that kind of flexibility can make sense.

But, yeah. My imagination's failure and lack of ability to do the mechanics better means;
all I can do is use/modify what's there enough where you might not walk away from my table.

1) Um, I am not at your table? Or where you using "you" to represent an arbitrary person?
2) Knowing your limitations (not failure) actually helps you overcome them when it is a limitation in imagination. During this dialogue I even had a spontaneous thought (which I posted). That might push my limitation further.
3) You are not alone. You have your imagination, the imagination of the players around you, and the imagination of everyone else you seek out. Jakinbandw's imagination came up with an idea. While their idea is too strong (again, it is flexibility not power that is being sought) it did display a way to push the imagination limit.
4) Your decisions are not written in stone. When a rulebook is published, that attempt is recorded for all time. If it has a mistake, it will be there forever. When you make a decision, you can alter it later. You have the freedom to continually improve your houserules/homebrew.

[Great Dragon]

Spell slots don't work as a limiting mechanic and wouldn't even if spells themselves weren't so strong. They're entirely reliant on the GM being willing and able to enforce a number of "encounters" every day. This gets harder as you leave a traditional dungeon crawl. Furthermore, if casters have their per-day spells and non-casters don't, the whole party still operates on the casters' schedule. Which only contributes to the feeling that casters are the more important party members.

Furthermore, casters being screwed once they run out of spells or components is not a good thing.
It only enforces a binary - either they do have the right spell and solve a problem/encounter handily or they don't and they're neutralized. Same thing happens with anti-magic fields, zones and whatnot.

I didn't use the word "almost" in this entire thread.

IiRC - it was "close"

Somewhat close, yes.

- which I interpret as the same.

Sorry, I'll keep looking for you, Morty.

@Morty:
Casters Being Binary is actually meant to be a real limit. Spells are not like skills.
They do one thing, and it either works, or not

Yes, and it's a bad limit that doesn't work. As I have explained.
It's a root cause of many of the problems people debate about endlessly.

Me = Post #33
Morty = Post #38
Me = Post #39

Perhaps more elaboration on why everything that I've posted doesn't work as a limit to Mages?
(Don't want to read the entire thread again? OK)
Lower Spell Slots. Limited Spells Known/day. Concentration and Component requirements.
No Wish. No endless Simulacrum. No Demiplane/s. Switch Astral Projection and Plane Shift.
New = Put a CR cap on Gate?

That might be because I am discussing rather than arguing.

I'm sorry if I seem to be trying to argue, but that's really not my goal.
And sometimes I'll have trouble organizing/expressing my thoughts. (On Phone plus RL time limits)

As you noticed during a heated discussion about (metaphorical) Elephants in a (now dead?) thread not too long ago, I'm not very diplomatic in conveying my side of the debate. Your assistance with that was greatly appreciated.

Seems my Logic doesn't translate well, either.

I described what the root cause is, why it occurs, and the mechanism of how it occurs.

I'll try to re-read that.
(Placed in my post below)

I did this to help create empathy for both the player with the level capped concept and the author whose work failed to raise that level cap to the system's level cap. (It can be annoying to have a 5th level character in a 20th level group despite your sheet saying 20th level)

So, was my suggestion to take away all but the Cantrips for damage for a Wizard bring said down from their perch?

Doesn't seem so, what with all the other "instant win" (but still limited) non-combat spells (of mid-high range) available.

Which seems to be the complaint, here.

This is not an issue of balance. This is not an issue of power. It is an issue of flexibility. It is an issue of imagination limits.

I'm hoping that I'm showing that I'm at least trying to expand my knowledge and imagination.
(Especially since I'm now attempting to actually understand 4e)

But, with that flexibility for Martials, it seems that it is also duplicating/decreasing the same flexibility for mages.

Like the Fighter not being an Eldritch Knight, but still using Fly at least twice a day.

Like the Monk not being Way of the Shadow, but still matching Misty Step nearly at will.

These examples simply say: Subclasses are pointless.
Throw everything into a blender and just pick what you want.

Which then the game becomes a Point Buy System, and Archetypes barely have meaning. (Shadowrun)

Or is my imagination once again off track?

*"***

Having to reread the entire thread multiple times is time consuming.

I like (but am not using) a system where casting magic is difficult. The simplest way to do this is to give every spell a base 15 DC to be successfully cast. Add the level of the spell (cantrips are level 0) to get the target DC for successfully casting. Allow the caster to add their proficiency and spell-casting-ability modifier to their roll. Beyond that you can gain additional modifiers. Using a spell focus, using material components, casting as a ritual, taking additional time, getting assistance from another magic user, having the spell prepared ahead of time, and so on can provide bonuses to the caster's roll. If the roll fails then wild magic surges can happen and the severity of the effect is modified by how badly the caster failed their roll. At lower levels you can get a severe, debilitating migraine. Higher level spell failures might cause your brain to squirt out your ears and splatter on the walls. That makes a difference when spellcasters are deciding what to do.

So, i have to accept another possible chance at failing at something that I invested time and effort in getting?
So, to cast a first level spell at first level is a DC 16 check, where I get 2 + 3 (5 max) = +5 (+7) to the Roll.
Which means that I need to roll 11+ (9+ max) to succeed, and then I need to roll again to Hit, or the target needs to roll a save vs DC 13. And a 9th level spell is DC 24 so 6 +5 = 11 need 13+ on d20.

Extra steps for more failure chances are not something I’d really want to have to do.
But, I guess that’s just me.

Ritual-only magic is something I really wouldn't be interested in, frankly.

And yes, I did try it. In WoD Mage.
Most of the time my attempts to do a ritual failed (despite rolling good enough to succeed), simply because of a "random event/encounter" at one or more locations that a piece of the Ritual was at: everything from a rat/cat/dog messing it up, to a wandering little old lady that needed a candle for her grandson's birthday cake. Actively casting a spell sucked to the point of losing the desire to continue playing that Character.

It is a consequence of two people with different limits to their imagination.

Right. While getting Gygax to admit that he actually needed Arneson to make oD&D was nearly impossible, doesn't change that fact.

I heard that a lot of the simple D&D made by Arneson was considered lots better than Gygax's AD&D THACo.

And progress can and has been made.
Progress can happen faster while we understand the problem's mechanics.

Everybody can do something in combat, unless the Player deliberately builds a combat weak PC.
Like sHuman with 8s in Str, Con and Dex. And nothing but Int skills.

One of D&D's biggest failings is non-combat Abilities and resolution. It's either ignored/ hand-waved or is binary pass/fail
Which mostly duplicated combat.

So my examples were not in vain. You do see mismatch between the concepts supported in the abstract and the concepts supported mechanically once you reach higher level.

Indeed. I can step outside the (RPG) Box, but can't go more than a few feet.

Hopefully you have also been reading HOW that mismatch occurs. Hopefully you are empathizing with me over the difficulty authors have with the limits of their imagination. I personally have stated the imagination limits of my own ability to create mechanics at higher levels. Hopefully you still empathize with those unhappy players. The players that had a concept, chose a RPG that the concept fit within, and then found a lack of supporting mechanics.

I'm working on understanding how the mismatch occurs.

I attempt empathizing with authors and devs.

I have always empathized with unhappy Players, having been one more than once. I try to use the rules available to get as close to their concept as possible, even if bending or Homebrewing the rules is needed.

Knowing is half the battle.

Gi Joe !!! LoL

Sounds like we have a miscommunication. ToB maneuvers get expended. Spells get expended. Smites get expended. Fighter's attacks do not get expended despite only being allowed X actions each turn. Paladin Auras don't get expended nor do they have a duration that runs out.*
Some character concepts are more like Fighter's attacks & Paladin Auras than they are like ToB maneuvers, Barbarian Rages, or Paladin Smites. That distinction is what I usually label as "limited resources" to communicate the distinction those players cared about with regard to their character concepts they wanted to instantiate.

* I actually didn't know that.

So Auras help others, would using 3x Psionic Mantles (that only benefit the user) and features duplicating ToB Stances be closer?

ToB Disciplines being expended like spell slots.

IDK, I'd really rather make the ToB Classes be their own thing, since those Mechanics matched the Fluff rather well.

(A) This felt off topic.

1) I have been talking about flexibility not power.

2) I don't want to talking about any person to person conflict.

3) If you want to give Martials an AoE effects, have you considered giving them Sweeping melee attacks (attack everyone in 3 squares) and either a Volley(dex) or Frag/Larger(str) ranged attacks? They are at least 10th level so that kind of flexibility can make sense.

(A) Sorry, I tend to put down my thoughts as I have them, then run out of Time and Post so as to not lose everything. I now try to get most of what I want saved on Docs, so maybe I will get better at not being completely random.
I'll re-read my post and see if I can get it to make more sense.

1) See, flexibility is also a form of power.
It's just a different way to use/apply power.

2) Um, also my goal?

3) These are things that I have considered, but without a Playtesting Group, they just sit there.

1) Um, I am not at your table?

2) Knowing your limitations (not failure) actually helps you overcome them when it is a limitation in imagination. During this dialogue I even had a spontaneous thought (which I posted). That might push my limitation further.

3) You are not alone. You have your imagination, the imagination of the players around you, and the imagination of everyone else you seek out. Jakinbandw's imagination came up with an idea. While their idea is too strong (again, it is flexibility not power that is being sought) it did display a way to push the imagination limit.

4) Your decisions are not written in stone. When a rulebook is published, that attempt is recorded for all time. If it has a mistake, it will be there forever. When you make a decision, you can alter it later. You have the freedom to continually improve your houserules/homebrew.

1) In this case it was the Forum table, instead of a physical table.

Seems that when I have an Idea, there's a 75% chance that it will be shot down, a 15% chance it's a (liked) hit, and a 10% chance it will be ignored.

2) I'm having ideas, just not (seemingly) very helpful ones.

3) When no one responds to me, despite seeing new posts, just makes me feel ignored.

I really do appreciate your responding to me.

4) I'll most likely always be trying to improve my Houserules and Homebrew.

Comments and Suggestions in Ancient Realms and similar posts welcome. Just be prepared to write up long detailed explanations on why you think something should be changed.

Looking over your "thought" post.

[OldTrees1]

I'm sorry if I seem to be trying to argue, but that's really not my goal.
And sometimes I'll have trouble organizing/expressing my thoughts. (On Phone plus RL time limits)

As you noticed during a heated discussion about (metaphorical) Elephants in a (now dead?) thread not too long ago, I'm not very diplomatic in conveying my side of the debate. Your assistance with that was greatly appreciated.

Seems my Logic doesn't translate well, either.

No problem. I was mostly highlighting that "if I reply to you, it does not imply I am contradicting you". This subthread started when you asked why people might still want more flexible martials even if you were nerfing the power of casters. So I described the desire for flexible martials in a manner that was independent of the power/flexibility of casters and also independent from the power of martials (the latter being emphasized by the comments about flexibility =/= power).

I'll try to re-read that.
(Space Saved for Edit)

Link to the clearest version: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...6&postcount=83

Short summary: If the game says a player can play a Nth level X but the mechanics don't let them instantiate a Nth level X but would let them instantiate a 2Nth level Y. The player get disappointed that they can't instantiate a 2Nth level X.

So, was my suggestion to take away all but the Cantrips for damage for a Wizard bring said down from their perch?

Doesn't seem so, what with all the other "instant win" (but still limited) non-combat spells (of mid-high range) available.

Which seems to be the complaint, here.

I believe that change would be tangential to the desire for flexible martials.

To give a concrete example D&D says a high level party can fight Dragons. Dragons are known for aerial combat over hostile terrain. So the premise of D&D would allow a high level martials to have the flexibility needed to engage with a Red Wyrm over and inside a lake of lava. And that is just combat, high level D&D includes more than just combat.

So the player can imagine this mighty warrior leaping up at the dragon. Grabbing onto the dragon. Engaging in brutal combat as the Dragon scrapes them against walls and plunges through lava. And the Authors probably could imagine that too. But they were unable to find mechanics that would allow that warrior to be instantiated. So the 20th level fighter mechanics depict a 6th level warrior that is 20th level in name only (albiet with more damage, but this is about flexibility not power).

I'm hoping that I'm showing that I'm at least trying to expand my knowledge and imagination.
(Especially since I'm now attempting to actually understand 4e)

Your intent is clear. I can see your desire to understand.
As for imagination. I am mostly describing the kind of imagination limit. Other than understanding the limit, I don't have tips on how to expand that imagination. Although simply following this thread has helped me expand it slightly. I really was underestimating the flexibility movement speed (combined with additional actions mid move).

But, with that flexibility for Martials, it seems that it is also duplicating/decreasing the same flexibility for mages.

Like the Fighter not being an Eldritch Knight, but still using Fly at least twice a day.

Like the Monk not being Way of the Shadow, but still matching Misty Step nearly at will.

These examples simply say: Subclasses are pointless.
Throw everything into a blender and just pick what you want.

Which then the game becomes a Point Buy System, and Archetypes barely have meaning. (Shadowrun)

Or is my imagination once again off track?

Well Druids and Wizards both are flexible but are different. In 5E the Rogue Cunning Action, Expertise, and Reliable Talent give it some flexibility but in a different way than the Wizard.
1) Instead of giving Fighter "The Fly spell", ask yourself "How would fly increase the flexibility of Fighter and can I achieve a similar flexibility with a different mechanic." This is a much harder question. Hence why I also call for empathy with the authors.
2) Instead of #1, abstract it one step further. "In what areas is Fighter not able to be flexible and engage? Can I think of their way to be flexible and engage there?" An even harder question. You can start to see why I am describing the barrier rather than give answers.
3) Instead of #2, abstract it one step further. "What can the concept of a high level Fighter do? How can I make mechanics for that? Repeat again and again." This is how Wizard spells are made.

So in the end you don't get the "blender" effect. However the process becomes more taxing on the imagination. And this is not a solved problem. As I said earlier, I cannot imagine mechanics for the highest level martials. My imagination has a limit. I can create mechanics for a 10th level Fighter slaughtering an army:
1) Sweeping attack: Each melee attack hits 3 squares worth of foes. Makes even more sense if your movement can happen between attacks.
2a) Volley ranged attacks: Shooting a volley of attacks, make a ranged attack at a penalty against each enemy in a 10ft radius.
2b) Larger ranged attacks: Throwing a large object, make a single ranged attack at a penalty. It targets each enemy in a 10ft radius.

This is difficult but it is flexibility, not power, that martials lack and the player want. Attempts to merely staple on magic/casting solutions (see Tome of Battle) only work for some player. So the alternative is this process of recognizing the limits of imagination and then breaking through them.

* I actually didn't know that.

So Auras help others, would using 3x Psionic Mantles (that only benefit the user) and features duplicating ToB Stances be closer?

ToB Disciplines being expended like spell slots.

IDK, I'd really rather make the ToB Classes be their own thing, since those Mechanics matched the Fluff rather well.

Yeah Auras very neat. They helped me come up with some ideas. 3rd edition D&D had a Marshal class which tried to do a non magic themed Aura based feature. Personally I feel the 5E Paladin auras are more flexible and better designed. However the entire concept is a gold mine.

ToB stances were AMAZING. Having several passive effects you could swap between. Lovely.

I forgot about Psionic Mantles. Nice.

Yeah this kind of a mechanic is a good way to give a character / class / subclass a qualitative passive effect. Those can help increase flexibility.

1) See, flexibility is also a form of power.
It's just a different way to use/apply power.

Yeah that is technically true but the difference between vertical increases in power and horizontal increases in power is a useful distinction. If someone wants more flexibility, giving them +1000 damage will generally not satisfy the desire. Remember the One Punch reference earlier, it increased both the raw power and the flexibility but I did not care at all about the increase in raw power.

So that is why I stress it is about flexibility not power. (Same as the difference between "Tier 1 vs Tier 2" or "Tier 3 vs Tier 4")

[Great Dragon]

Thank you for your patience.

No problem. I was mostly highlighting that "if I reply to you, it does not imply I am contradicting you". This subthread started when you asked why people might still want more flexible martials even if you were nerfing the power of casters. So I described the desire for flexible martials in a manner that was independent of the power/flexibility of casters and also independent from the power of martials (the latter being emphasized by the comments about flexibility =/= power).

Sorry, i was stuck on comparing your answers against a caster, instead of just against other martials.

And while thinking on how to have someone do something beyond the normal limits is how spells were made, they don't work outside of /magic.

Which is not what is wanted, atm.

As I said earlier, I cannot imagine mechanics for the highest level martials. My imagination has a limit. I can create mechanics for a 10th level Fighter slaughtering an army:
1) Sweeping attack: Each melee attack hits 3 squares worth of foes. Makes even more sense if your movement can happen between attacks.
2a) Volley ranged attacks: Shooting a volley of attacks, make a ranged attack at a penalty against each enemy in a 10ft radius.
2b) Larger ranged attacks: Throwing a large object, make a single ranged attack at a penalty. It targets each enemy in a 10ft radius.

This is difficult but it is flexibility, not power, that martials lack and the player want. Attempts to merely staple on magic/casting solutions (see Tome of Battle) only work for some player. So the alternative is this process of recognizing the limits of imagination and then breaking through them.

With some of the things from 3x I can imagine #1 of the above.
But, it requires expenditure of a resource most will complain about: Feats.
It starts with
Power Attack. For 5e this would be reduce to hit by Proficiency to deal double that value in damage. (Power boost. Keep going.)

Cleave - drop one foe and attack next within 5 feet.
(Flexibility?)

Great Cleave - no limit to number of foes dropped within 5 feat.
(Power + Flexibility?)

Supreme Cleave - as Great, but also 5 foot move, and continue Cleaving until missing or failing to drop a foe.
(Flexibility?)

Trail of Blood - Cleaving attacks up to full movement speed, so long as dropping foes.
(Power + Flexibility?)

So, Q (1) would keeping these as feats in 5e be enough to achieve some of the higher level flexibility for martials? That way both fighters and Barbarians have equal access.

Or Q (2) would those be better as things that are added to the base features of one class?
Most likely Barbarian.

I believe that (1) is closer to the goal.

#2 is what the Ranger's Hail of Thorns spell does.
Limited to only one class, and therefore not wanted.

#2b can be pushing Believably - even in a Fantasy Game.
A Halfling even with a 20 str should't be able to pick up a 10' diameter two ton rock and throw it 100 feet. (without serious magic!!)

um, still sympathizing with both authors and sad players.....

Struck by a thought. Have to write it somewhere:

A way to make a flexible martials without limited resources / spellcasting:
Start with a variety of basic endeavors: Attack, Movement, ..., ..., etc
I suggest having the number of endeavors per turn and out of turn increase with level.
Have a chapter of alterations: Knockback, Power Attack, ..., etc
Alterations are not feats, you get access to all the ones you satisfy the unlock requirement for. No feats needed here.
Each option in the chapter of alterations will have:

[1] An unlock requirement. For example Knockback might require Str 15, or Athletics Proficiency, or a Paraglider, or ..., etc

[2] A requirement of the endeavor it will modify. For example Knockback would require the endeavor contacts the target of the knockback

[3] A complexity cost. This prevents you from apply every compatible alteration each time you use an endeavor. Complexity ranges from 0 to some positive number. Negative complexity costs do not exist.

[4] An effect (duh) which might scale or even trigger another endeavor. Knockback might have distance scale off of an Athletics check, or maybe it kicks off a Pushing endeavor to determine the distance.

Each time the character uses an endeavor (and that can be multiple times per turn or out of turn) they can modify it with alterations up to some complexity cap (which increases with level).

So you have martials whose flexibility scales with: (content created, complexity cap (mostly direct level scaling), and achieving unlock thresholds (indirect level scaling)).

So you could have someone use this system to do things like:
[A] Hit a boulder for fast travel
[5] Give an ally cover as a reaction
and many more

I've noticed that Extra Actions are kinda hard outside Legendary Actions.

I can see Bonus and Reaction options being added, though. (Unless you meant completely rewriting the game Mechanics?)

(1) Ok.

(2)Bonus Action: Knockback:
Opposed Str check or
Str Save? (DC 8 + Proficiency + Str mod)

(3) complexity could be either Proficiency times per round (so not limited to just BA/RA) or perhaps on some other Ability - like Con?

(4) maybe knockback is opposed Str with the loser being shoved the difference between the Scores?

(5) Either as a Reaction with Protector Style?
or sacrifice your Bonus Action next round?

(A) Uses BA and move, but triples normal jumping distance in combat? O-C maybe double hourly travel rates for Con mod hours?

[OldTrees1]

Thank you for your patience.

Sorry, i was stuck on comparing your answers against a caster, instead of just against other martials.

And while thinking on how to have someone do something beyond the normal limits is how spells were made, they don't work outside of /magic.

Which is not what is wanted, atm.

It is tough to figure out how to do something beyond the normal limits without using magic.
Then again, a high level martial is not "normal limits" despite not using magic.
So it is tough to design mechanics for high level martials.

It has been nice chatting with you. However the work week looms so I will not be as active.

With some of the things from 3x I can imagine #1 of the above.
But, it requires expenditure of a resource most will complain about: Feats.
It starts with
Power Attack. For 5e this would be reduce to hit by Proficiency to deal double that value in damage. (Power boost. Keep going.)

Cleave - drop one foe and attack next within 5 feet.
(Flexibility?)

Great Cleave - no limit to number of foes dropped within 5 feat.
(Power + Flexibility?)

Supreme Cleave - as Great, but also 5 foot move, and continue Cleaving until missing or failing to drop a foe.
(Flexibility?)

Trail of Blood - Cleaving attacks up to full movement speed, so long as dropping foes.
(Power + Flexibility?)

So, Q (1) would keeping these as feats in 5e be enough to achieve some of the higher level flexibility for martials? That way both fighters and Barbarians have equal access.

Or Q (2) would those be better as things that are added to the base features of one class?
Most likely Barbarian.

I believe that (1) is closer to the goal.

#2 is what the Ranger's Hail of Thorns spell does.
Limited to only one class, and therefore not wanted.

#2b can be pushing Believably - even in a Fantasy Game.
A Halfling even with a 20 str should't be able to pick up a 10' diameter two ton rock and throw it 100 feet. (without serious magic!!)

um, still sympathizing with both authors and sad players.....

The 3rd edition feats were an improvement from earlier versions. They let the martials gain at-will access to a limited number of combat tricks. Turns out the limitation of feats did not map well for growing flexibility with level. I attempt to address this below by having the alterations have unlock requirements rather than costing feats.

Yes you could increase 5E martial flexibility by combining a bunch of 3rd edition feats and class features as a 5E feat. For example look at the War Hulk prestige class and turn that into a feat named War Hulk which gives access to Sweeping attacks and Large ranged attacks. Sometimes expanding the flexibility will require making your own content / feats / class features.

Or yes, maybe adding more features to the base classes / subclasses would be a good idea. Avoid increasing the vertical power of the class too much (some is okay) because it is the horizontal power that is desired.

You could change Hail of Thorns from a Ranger spell into a basic combat option at 6th+ or 11th+ level. Use an accuracy penalty to rebalance.

Fair, maybe it is not a 2 ton boulder. Just a large object. If 20 strength can lift it then it probably hurts several goblins. Maybe it even skids across the ground like a comet.

I've noticed that Extra Actions are kinda hard outside Legendary Actions.

I can see Bonus and Reaction options being added, though. (Unless you meant completely rewriting the game Mechanics?)

(1) Ok.

(2)Bonus Action: Knockback:
Opposed Str check or
Str Save? (DC 8 + Proficiency + Str mod)

(3) complexity could be either Proficiency times per round (so not limited to just BA/RA) or perhaps on some other Ability - like Con?

(4) maybe knockback is opposed Str with the loser being shoved the difference between the Scores?

(5) Either as a Reaction with Protector Style?
or sacrifice your Bonus Action next round?

(A) Uses BA and move, but triples normal jumping distance in combat? O-C maybe double hourly travel rates for Con mod hours?

Since this is the general RPG area I was spitballing new mechanics. This kind of system would be more aimed at if someone was authoring a new edition of an RPG.

You have good ideas. I expect you could make your own list of alterations.
5) I was thinking of using a reaction to hit an object between your ally and the attack. So the Hold Person spell fails because it hits the object instead.

To convert to 5E D&D maybe:
1) Replace Extra Attack with an Extra Endeavor per turn.
2) Let all martials do an Endeavor as a reaction. (Different martials get access to different ones as reactions?)
3) Complexity limit per Endeavor is equal to their Proficiency
4) Have Attack, Move, Push, ... as some base Endeavors
5) Push would move a target further with a higher success. Additionally it could be used on objects.
7) Rebalance these.
6) Some alterations
Knockback [Attack or Push][Complexity 3]:

• Unlock: Str 16 or Athletics proficiency.
• Requirement: The endeavor hits a target.
• Effect: Make a Push endeavor against the same target at half your Complexity max.

Sweeping [Attack or Push][Complexity 4]:

• Unlock: Str 20, Large Size, or Athletics expertise.
• Requirement: The endeavor hits a target.
• Effect: The endeavor hits all targets in 3 continuous squares in reach.

Mighty Push [Attack or Push][Complexity 1]:

• Unlock: Str 16, Athletics proficiency.
• Requirement: The endeavor moves a target.
• Effect: Take a -5 penalty on the endeavor. Double the movement.
• This can be applied multiple times.

Launch [Push][Complexity 2]:

• Unlock: Str 18, Large Size, or Athletics proficiency.
• Requirement: The endeavor moves a target.
• Effect: Halve the distance the target moves. Instead it also is thrown upwards that high.
• This can be applied multiple times.

Up the Walls [Movement][Complexity 3]:

• Unlock: Dex 18, 40ft Speed, or Acrobatics expertise.
• Requirement: The movement is adjacent to a wall.
• Effect: You run up the wall. You gain 5ft of altitude per 10ft you move.

[Great Dragon]

Putting these things (slowly) into Ancient Realms.

As for imagination. I am mostly describing the kind of imagination limit. Other than understanding the limit, I don't have tips on how to expand that imagination. Although simply following this thread has helped me expand it slightly. I really was underestimating the flexibility movement speed (combined with additional actions mid move).

Einstein said that Imagination is more important than Knowledge.

But IMO/E Knowledge is the foundation of Imagination.

Knowledge tells what is already possible,
Imagination reaches for new limits.

The 3rd edition feats were an improvement from earlier versions. They let the martials gain at-will access to a limited number of combat tricks. Turns out the limitation of feats did not map well for growing flexibility with level. I attempt to address this below by having the alterations have unlock requirements rather than costing feats.

Yes you could increase 5E martial flexibility by combining a bunch of 3rd edition feats and class features as a 5E feat. For example look at the War Hulk prestige class and turn that into a feat named War Hulk which gives access to Sweeping attacks and Large ranged attacks. Sometimes expanding the flexibility will require making your own content / feats / class features.

Or yes, maybe adding more features to the base classes / subclasses would be a good idea. Avoid increasing the vertical power of the class too much (some is okay) because it is the horizontal power that is desired.

There are things that 3x D&D had that don't convert to 5e very well.

Making the War Hulk a feat could be neat, but in order to prevent too much O.P needs a limit. Maybe treats thrown objects as being proficient, but with maybe a 25/50 foot range?
Can use Extra Attack, but not Two-weapon Fighting or Multi-attack?

You could change Hail of Thorns from a Ranger spell into a basic combat option at 6th+ or 11th+ level. Use an accuracy penalty to rebalance.

I would most likely do so at 11th level, mostly to not overshadow the Ranger's coolness too early.

Fair, maybe it is not a 2 ton boulder. Just a large object. If 20 strength can lift it then it probably hurts several goblins. Maybe it even skids across the ground like a comet.

Let me see (5e) 20 Str times 15 = 300 pound rock. Um, how big would that be?
Like maybe a 3 foot diameter rock? Figure being able to throw that 10 feet with no problem, and maybe up to 20 feet at disadvantage? A Medium sized creature could throw that 15/30.
A Large creature could maybe throw that 20/50?

Since this is the general RPG area I was spitballing new mechanics.
This kind of system would be more aimed at if someone was authoring a new edition of an RPG.

Without some idea of the mechanics they would be using for the engine, I'll stick with what I (mostly) know.

You have good ideas. I expect you could make your own list of alterations.

Wow! Thanks!!!

5) I was thinking of using a reaction to hit an object between your ally and the attack.
So the Hold Person spell fails because it hits the object instead.

Well, for 5e, I could see doing that giving Advantage to the Save....
Other RPGs might allow negation.

To convert to 5E D&D maybe:
1) Replace Extra Attack with an Extra Endeavor per turn.
2) Let all martials do an Endeavor as a reaction. (Different martials get access to different ones as reactions?)
3) Complexity limit per Endeavor is equal to their Proficiency
4) Have Attack, Move, Push, ... as some base Endeavors
5) Push would move a target further with a higher success. Additionally it could be used on objects.
6) Rebalance these.
7) Some alterations

(1) I'd rather make it where Endeavors could be added to each attack, but maybe limited number of uses per round - see #3. Martials (other than Rogues) don't really get a lot of things to use BAs/RAs on. I'm not sure, though. Some of these I could see being used more than once a round, with each successful hit - like the Conditions that a Monk imposes on a hit. At no Ki cost.

(2) Same problem as (1).

(3) This is a good limit.
Maybe a Feat (11th level requirement) that adds either Dex or Cha to that limit for higher levels?

(4) Push/Toss, Drag/Move, Slide.

(5) Foes can try to oppose? Objects have a weight limit?

(6) Playtesting stage

(7) Most likely; more than once.

Knockback [Attack or Push][Complexity 3]:

• Unlock: Str 16 or Athletics proficiency.
• Requirement: The endeavor hits a target.
• Effect: Make a Push endeavor against the same target at half your Complexity max.

Perhaps a Str Save DC 8 + Proficiency + Str modifier. Target moved back half maximum speed?

Sweeping [Attack or Push][Complexity 4]:

• Unlock: Str 20, Large Size, or Athletics expertise.
• Requirement: The endeavor hits a target.
• Effect: The endeavor hits all targets in 3 continuous squares in reach.

Expertise locks this into Rogue (or Bard, but only Swords and Valor might be able to do it).
I'd suggest: Large Size or 20 Str plus 13 Dex and proficient in Athletics.

Roll separately for each target; with Disadvantage after first target?

Mighty Push [Attack or Push][Complexity 1]:

• Unlock: Str 16, Athletics proficiency.
• Requirement: The endeavor moves a target.
• Effect: Take a -5 penalty on the endeavor. Double the movement.
• This can be applied multiple times.

Yes, Bonus Action to allow movement by user to keep pace with target.
Opposed Str (Athletics) check with target pushed Double the difference in feet each time.

Launch [Push][Complexity 2]:

• Unlock: Str 18, Large Size, or Athletics proficiency.
• Requirement: The endeavor moves a target.
• Effect: Halve the distance the target moves. Instead it also is thrown upwards that high.
• This can be applied multiple times.

Requires Bonus Attack to initiate, must hit target, opposed Str (athletics) check?

Up the Walls [Movement][Complexity 3]:

• Unlock: Dex 18, 40ft Speed, or Acrobatics expertise.
• Requirement: The movement is adjacent to a wall.
• Effect: You run up the wall. You gain 5ft of altitude per 10ft you move.

Requires Bonus Attack to initiate? Would still allow movement, and attacking foes on ceiling (if within range) as part of their Actions on their Turn.

*********
Thoughts?

Until next time, have Fun !

[GreatWyrmGold]

Add a "Stamina" system that gives martial-types access to a point-based resource which lets them perform maneuvers. (and don't lock it down to near-uselessness like Ki)

But real people can't do that, and obviously we need to restrict fighters and rogues to the level of real-world soldiers and thieves despite not restricting clerics or wizards to the level of real-world priests or scholars.
...Nah, that's a ridiculous argument. Good thing nobody—

Although, as a rough baseline, we can use The Fantasy Trip to work out how weak a wizard would have to be to achieve balance with a (relatively) realistic warrior.

Consequently, in many cases, it doesn't make sense for a completely non-magical character to be more powerful than a character whose abilities are augmented by magic.

Why is the "Guy At The Gym Fallacy" still a thing? The dragonborn barbarian I'll be playing with this evening isn't restricted to the capabilities of Viking raiders attacking Lindisfarne any more than my dwarven cleric is restricted to the capabilities of the people he was raiding.

One thing almost no edition of D&D has done is point out that past roughly level 12 your characters are just beyond the scale of Mythic Mortals, especially the spellcasters. At that point I struggle to think pre-D&D stories which have martials at that power level, and literally can't think of any for magic users.

A few have tried, but done so pretty poorly. The one that sticks out in my mind is when they tried to define character tiers as "gritty fantasy," "high fantasy," "wuxia," and "superheroes," despite all of those genres having elements beyond character power and works whose power levels were vastly higher or lower than implied by their placement in that list. (D&D is, by default, high fantasy in all ways that weren't badly-redefined by game designers.)

I think there's also an aspect of 'warrior-type' powers like super strength gradually becoming kind of inherently ridiculous at really high levels of power.

What, and the mage's abilities aren't inherently ridiculous at high levels? Shadow Evocation hurts people with illusions! Storm of Vengeance makes acid rain for exactly six seconds! Astral Projection is hippy stuff!
If you find people doing deeds well beyond human capabilities "inherently ridiculous," maybe fantasy isn't the genre for you.

Spell slots don't work as a limiting mechanic and wouldn't even if spells themselves weren't so strong. They're entirely reliant on the GM being willing and able to enforce a number of "encounters" every day. This gets harder as you leave a traditional dungeon crawl.

It's not even necessarily a matter of the DM "enforcing" a certain adventuring schedule. Some types of adventures just don't lend themselves to half a dozen encounters with two hour-long commercial breaks.

If you enforce tracking accurately how many material components each Wizard is carrying I want the rogue to track exactly how many ball bearings they have on their person.

Bad argument. I've only met one rogue who used ball bearings, and he never used them successfully.
Most classes don't have material components they need to keep track of; archers need arrows, if the DM bothers with something that's so trivial to solve (mine tend to either not bring it up or say "You're good" if I put a skill point into an appropriate Craft skill).

Spoiler: What IS power?

Show

Spell Point Systems already exist.

It doesnt make them much more powerful, just much more flexible.

Power equals power. It doesn't matter if that power comes from throwing around higher-level spells or the flexibility to throw around lots of high-level spells or countless first-level ones; power equals power.

Well, one third thing is the treasure table. Somewhere along the way gamers (or at least forum-goers) decided that 'but fighters can use magic swords, which often have as much power as wizards' was not an acceptable answer to the fighter-mu split, but there's no specific reason it can't be.

My biggest problem with this is that magic swords don't have as much power as wizards. Power equals power, and the caster's power doesn't come from casting one specific high-level spell. It comes from casting a varied bunch of spells of all levels, suited to a wide variety of situations. A +2 sword that shoots fireballs will never be as strong as a wizard that can cast fireball (without redesigning other aspects of the game), because that wizard can cast a variety of other spells as well as fireball.
There's also conceptual problems which arise from 5e's lackadaisical approach to magic items ("Eh, you'll get a few random ones; if you like 'em, great, if not, oh well"), and from some other games' approaches to magic items (for instance, wizards increasing their power further with the wealth fighters used trying to catch up to the wizard's level), but there are ways to get around that with better magic item distribution design.

Spoiler: 4e

Show

IDK, 5e seems a lot more "Balanced" than all the other versions of D&D.

4e seemed better from what I saw of it. Rein in the frequency of top-tier caster abilities while giving martials their own suite of superhuman powers? Sounds good to me! (Of course, everybody I play with transitioned straight from 3.5 to Pathfinder or 5e, so my only hands-on experience was an aborted online game a few years back.)
I don't blame you for leaving 4e out; I blame the D&D's general opinion that 4e doesn't count for you leaving 4e out.

4e looked a bit too much of a MMO, and the Diablo RPG was decent enough for that: but maybe some of the underpinning 4e Mechanics can be salvaged and converted….

No, it's not an attempt to do a tabletop MMO.

It is a skirmish-level miniature wargame, as well as an RPG, but it has very little in common with MMOs. Do people really not look past the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller setup? Because that's the only bit I can see that's in common with MMOs (it's also in quite a few single player CRPGs, as well as quite a few RTS and TBS games).

4e has mechanics largely redesigned from the ground up instead of building on foundations laid for a 1980's game with completely different design goals—just like a video game!
I always thought the "MMO-ness" of 4e came less from what it had and more from what it lacked. It had a good core set of mechanics, but focused less on the flavor than e.g. 5e did.

Honestly, I have a small list of things I wish had been kept from 4e. Healing Surges are one, Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller is another (Racial Powers are the third).

I'm fond of how they built every class on the same mechanics instead of giving one set powerful abilities with limited use (until you get enough spell slots that only the most game-breaking are actually limited) and another set unlimited-use decent abilities (which don't always scale as well, oops).
I don't like racial powers for the same reason I like Pathfinder 2e reframing "race" as "background". 4e focuses on race, making it seem like all sorts of things are just innate to someone by virtue of their ancestry, which might be true in a fantasy world designed a certain way, but designing your fantasy world that way has implications that make me uncomfortable if taken anywhere beyond "I get cool nature powers!" Meanwhile, PF2 does its best to imply that most racial abilities (including racial feats) are linked more to the culture one was raised in than their blood relatives, which has implications I'm more comfortable with.

To me, though, it felt like an attempt at a TTMMO.

And partially because of things you list... all the mechanics felt close to the same, with differences mainly being in how those abilities were "skinned" and some sliding scales for balancing... which is very common to MMOs. The whole "strictly and specifically defined role" thing too.

It's not just MMOs that do that, though. Shadowrun made all of its subsystems (mundane combat, spellcasting, conjuring, hacking, vehicle nonsense) work off the same few systems (most centrally, skills) and gave everyone the same sorts of resources to use. Sure, a street samurai was going to run through their physical damage counter faster than their stun damage counter while the street shaman ran through their stun counter faster (unless things went wrong for them), but they were the same core mechanics.
D&D's systems aren't a hallmark of it being A Tabletop RPG. They're a hallmark of it being a hodgepodge of ideas pasted together over nearly half a century by people who never felt safe cutting parts out or making massive changes. The way 4e, MMOs, and Shadowrun handle things is more a measure of having all those systems designed at once, for the same game, with the same vision in mind.

(Note: The version of Shadowrun I'm most familiar with is 2nd edition, thanks t the 2nd-edition SR books my dad had lying around.)

Spoiler: Off-Topic

Show

Sadly, we've seen character knowledge and sagacity poo-pooed as evidently meaningless in some recent threads...

Haven't seen those, so...
Seems like the kind of thing that's incredibly campaign-dependent, and very hard to work in well. Either you make it so your group can get everything important regardless of Knowledge rolls, or you risk your group not getting everything important because they flubbed a Knowledge roll.

But anyway, having a high INT should impact gameplay for people other than the wizard. But apparently the barbarian having an 8 INT doesn't stop him from spewing nuclear physics, even if his player can't lift 150lbs without losing mobility.

...which ties into a more general discussion about how badly-designed ability scores are in D&D, which is something we should have at some point. (TL;D-look to see if it ever got made: Everyone needs Dexterity, plus one or two other abilities per class and maybe Constitution/Wisdom; everything else is a complete dump stat 99% of the time.)

Please don't point at Gandolf, he's not really a wizard.

He's absolutely a wizard; he just comes from a universe where wizards are angels instead of scholars.
"Wizard" is not a multiversal constant. It means whatever it means in a given setting.

I know it's not a popular opinion in these parts, but, this really starts to get into why I consider the whole "adventuring day" and "resource expenditure" and "x/day" setup... something that's time has come and gone. There are other, better, more fluid and adaptable ways to handle things, and D&D just seems to refuse to consider them outside of optional rules that frankly fans of the game seem to hate.

There are ways to make resource-expenditure mechanics more interesting, but they would require linking those resources more closely with the rest of the game. At the end of the day, the only resource that matters is "Can you rest yet?", and D&D relies entirely on the DM to dole out that resource. It doesn't even provide much guidance on how to do so, beyond "Here's about how much fight you should have before the players rest, good luck enforcing that."
I have developed a distaste for Vancian systems in general. Video games have come up with some great ways to make combat dynamic and interesting without those "daily" limitations. Hollow Knight and Kingdom Hearts 1 have spells cost mana which regenerates when you attack, for instance, while many fighting games have you pause to charge a super-meter to power your strongest attacks. Or heck, look at VRPGs and the ways they balance their classes; they all have strictly-defined roles and active abilities which supplement those roles.

So here's a question, how would Saitama, of one punch man fame, fair against a high level wizard in dnd?

He's not a god, and purely martial, so I'm curious where he would rank.

Whose world are they fighting in?
In the OPM world, with OPM's rules, the wizard would blow up half the city and fight a bunch of heroes before Saitama showed up, beat the wizard in one punch, and probably gets blamed for the city blowing up or something else like that which works better if you're not just describing it at the tail end of a run-on sentence.
In the D&D world, bounded accuracy and limited martial damage mean that the wizard would survive enough punches to cast fly or some other spell that gets them out of Saitama's reach, meaning that Saitama needs to make an Athletics check and an attack roll to hit them and giving the wizard time to stick some kind of save-or-die spell on him.

If I pick up a book or PDF for a new system, and start seeing unavoidable attacks and instant kills, I generally put it down.

I don't think anyone's seriously modding in Saitama, they're just using him as a thought experiment for the theoretical maximum that their conception of a "fighter" could reach.

[jjordan]

Not very, actually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_tower
I mean you need a tall tower and a bucket of water, but those are a dime a dozen in D&D.

I meant to thank you for pointing this out. I had assumed iron/steel bearings and that was a mistake on my part. Lead makes a lot more sense. And now I need to make sure rogues and monks keep track of how many bearings they have. :)

[Max_Killjoy]

Why is the "Guy At The Gym Fallacy" still a thing?

Because quite a few of those arguing in favor of their pet "martial" insist that said character is a guy at the gym.

[Anonymouswizard]

Why is the "Guy At The Gym Fallacy" still a thing? The dragonborn barbarian I'll be playing with this evening isn't restricted to the capabilities of Viking raiders attacking Lindisfarne any more than my dwarven cleric is restricted to the capabilities of the people he was raiding.

While I do prefer low power games and will always argue strongly in favour of them, I have to admit that you're roughly taking my comment out of it's intended context. It was intended to show that to make wizards on par with realistic warriors they need most of the disadvantages that realistic warriors have (particularly MAD), and that the simple benefit of doing things others can't is massive.

If the Warrior is the Guy at the Gym the wizard has to be the Scientist in the Lab. IF you want god like martials you can't have lab technician wizards, and if you want godlike wizards warriors can't be the guy at the gym.

(This was also about how it's easier to balance wizards to warriors than warriors to wizards. But we can ignore that bit.)

I wasn't saying that the Dragonborn Paladin should be restricted, I'm saying if he's restricted than the wizard should also be restricted. I personally prefer realistic power scales, although I'm not against the occasional game of superheroes or angels, and so will tend to argue from that perspective, but my point was 'guy at the gym' is flawed if you're not using that as your baseline for magic users.

Heck, let's give warriors Fatigue if fights last more than ten seconds, allow them to take Fatigue to roll better, and make environmental damage do Fatigue, and let's make it recover at exactly the same rate as Fatigue from wizardly spellcasting. Then let's make the cost for a spell at least equal to the cost of fighting in a battle.

Or let's not do that, say that doing something by magic is treated the same as doing it mundanely rules-wise, and let people fluff as they like.

Or let's take away spells that solve problems and focus on spells that create advantages.

There's many ways to make wizards and warriors balanced. I'll just focus on low powered solutions because I like it.

A few have tried, but done so pretty poorly. The one that sticks out in my mind is when they tried to define character tiers as "gritty fantasy," "high fantasy," "wuxia," and "superheroes," despite all of those genres having elements beyond character power and works whose power levels were vastly higher or lower than implied by their placement in that list. (D&D is, by default, high fantasy in all ways that weren't badly-redefined by game designers.)

What's High Fantasy?

In all seriousness, D&D's latest editions have tried to throw themselves at so many genres that I can't really understand them. It used to be simple.

Levels 1-8 were a Heroic Fantasy game, where you were adventuring to fame and fortune. At level 9 you did it, you completed the Heroic Fantasy story, and the game tried to shift to being about domain management because you have the fame, the fortune, and the land. It's much more solidly rooted in the Conan the Barbarian heroic fantasy story than the Lord of the Rings high fantasy story, even though it has a specific point where you're assumed to have completed the heroic fantasy story and moved on to other things.

[GreatWyrmGold]

While I do prefer low power games and will always argue strongly in favour of them, I have to admit that you're roughly taking my comment out of it's intended context. It was intended to show that to make wizards on par with realistic warriors they need most of the disadvantages that realistic warriors have (particularly MAD), and that the simple benefit of doing things others can't is massive.

If the Warrior is the Guy at the Gym the wizard has to be the Scientist in the Lab. IF you want god like martials you can't have lab technician wizards, and if you want godlike wizards warriors can't be the guy at the gym.

Alright, that's fair. You were just making it sound like you didn't think martial characters could even theoretically match the power of D&D casters.

(This was also about how it's easier to balance wizards to warriors than warriors to wizards. But we can ignore that bit.)

I'm not sure that's true; you just need to accept a different-feeling game.

In all seriousness, D&D's latest editions have tried to throw themselves at so many genres that I can't really understand them. It used to be simple.

Levels 1-8 were a Heroic Fantasy game, where you were adventuring to fame and fortune. At level 9 you did it, you completed the Heroic Fantasy story, and the game tried to shift to being about domain management because you have the fame, the fortune, and the land. It's much more solidly rooted in the Conan the Barbarian heroic fantasy story than the Lord of the Rings high fantasy story, even though it has a specific point where you're assumed to have completed the heroic fantasy story and moved on to other things.

That sounds like the kind of thing that never worked in practice. It reminds me of Spore, where if you liked one stage and did well at it, your reward was a completely different game that had nothing to do with the original.
I prefer how games like New Gods of Mankind handle their "domain management," for the simple reason that it's a central mechanic to the game from start to finish rather than something you unlock that becomes the new gameplay loop.

[Great Dragon]

That sounds like the kind of thing that never worked in practice. It reminds me of Spore, where if you liked one stage and did well at it, your reward was a completely different game that had nothing to do with the original.
I prefer how games like New Gods of Mankind handle their "domain management," for the simple reason that it's a central mechanic to the game from start to finish rather than something you unlock that becomes the new gameplay loop.

The "new unlocked gameplay" loop is (IiRC) one of the main reasons why no-one really played past Tenth Level in "Classic" oD&D.
Or even in most AD&D games, really.

3e Birthright tried to do the "from start to finish" Domain Management, but very few people really got into it. I didn't really play Birthright, but I heard there was a lot of backstabbing and unfriendly PvP that happened. Like the worst of Game of Thrones and Intrigue based "The Americans" plus Gangbusters.

I'll be honest, I have trouble doing "Guy at the Gym" or even "Traveling Scientist" style gameplay. I mean, other than CoC (I don't play, so am going on Rumor) and maybe Spycraft and similar games, even come close.

Most everything else are "Heroic" RPGs.

[Morty]

Levels 1-8 were a Heroic Fantasy game, where you were adventuring to fame and fortune. At level 9 you did it, you completed the Heroic Fantasy story, and the game tried to shift to being about domain management because you have the fame, the fortune, and the land. It's much more solidly rooted in the Conan the Barbarian heroic fantasy story than the Lord of the Rings high fantasy story, even though it has a specific point where you're assumed to have completed the heroic fantasy story and moved on to other things.

That sounds like the kind of thing that never worked in practice. It reminds me of Spore, where if you liked one stage and did well at it, your reward was a completely different game that had nothing to do with the original.
I prefer how games like New Gods of Mankind handle their "domain management," for the simple reason that it's a central mechanic to the game from start to finish rather than something you unlock that becomes the new gameplay loop.

A solution to this is to give players and GMs a way to keep playing on a given level, like E6 already does. And generally make power levels variable, doing on purpose what D&D has typically done by incompetence. It's the only real way I see of reconciling all the different visions floating in threads like this one.

[Max_Killjoy]

What stops "guy at the gym" from being a hero in an RPG?

Isn't it just a matter of power scale?

Or does a character need to be capable of the impossible to be a heroic character?

(The HERO system specifically limits Heroic scale characters to normal characteristic maxes and no inherent superpowers.)

[Anonymouswizard]

That sounds like the kind of thing that never worked in practice. It reminds me of Spore, where if you liked one stage and did well at it, your reward was a completely different game that had nothing to do with the original.

Never said it worked in practice, I was just making an observation about how the game was (rather explicitly) set up. Wizard/warrior balance wasn't as important past 8th level because it was assumed the Fighter would have an army as well as some elite guards..

A solution to this is to give players and GMs a way to keep playing on a given level, like E6 already does. And generally make power levels variable, doing on purpose what D&D has typically done by incompetence. It's the only real way I see of reconciling all the different visions floating in threads like this one.

There needs to be more opportunity for sideways advancement, certainly.

[GreatWyrmGold]

3e Birthright tried to do the "from start to finish" Domain Management, but very few people really got into it. I didn't really play Birthright, but I heard there was a lot of backstabbing and unfriendly PvP that happened. Like the worst of Game of Thrones and Intrigue based "The Americans" plus Gangbusters.

That actually sounds like it could be fun, with the right group.

What stops "guy at the gym" from being a hero in an RPG?
Isn't it just a matter of power scale?
Or does a character need to be capable of the impossible to be a heroic character?

Depends on your definition of "hero". The classical hero needs to be superhuman, capable of triumphs and tragedies beyond the scale of mere mortals. Superheroes usually need to be superhuman, but not always explicitly so. But there are plenty of genres where a perfectly normal person can save the day.
It depends on your story more than anything, and generally speaking, D&D tries to give its players simple power fantasies. If you wanted, you could run a more grounded game with more mortal protagonists...but I'd recommend against using D&D for that. (Maybe some variant of E6.)

Never said it worked in practice, I was just making an observation about how the game was (rather explicitly) set up. Wizard/warrior balance wasn't as important past 8th level because it was assumed the Fighter would have an army as well as some elite guards.

I tend to think that how things work out in practice matters more than how things were supposed to work out. Turning off the reactor safety systems was supposed to give the folks at Chernobyl a better understanding of their reactor design, not melt it to slag.

[Max_Killjoy]

Depends on your definition of "hero". The classical hero needs to be superhuman, capable of triumphs and tragedies beyond the scale of mere mortals. Superheroes usually need to be superhuman, but not always explicitly so. But there are plenty of genres where a perfectly normal person can save the day.
It depends on your story more than anything, and generally speaking, D&D tries to give its players simple power fantasies. If you wanted, you could run a more grounded game with more mortal protagonists...but I'd recommend against using D&D for that. (Maybe some variant of E6.)

Most of those "classical heroes" were blatantly superhumans in some way or another... those were almost the superhero stories of their day.

I don't think someone needs to be the son of Zeus or the son of Krypton to be a hero.


(I'd recommend against using D&D, flat out, but that's just me.)

[Willie the Duck]

What stops "guy at the gym" from being a hero in an RPG?
Isn't it just a matter of power scale?
Or does a character need to be capable of the impossible to be a heroic character?
(The HERO system specifically limits Heroic scale characters to normal characteristic maxes and no inherent superpowers.)

As a generality, they absolutely can. At least they can in literature and the like. Cinematic interpretations of cliffhanger stories like Indiana Jones tend to take, well, cinematic liberties with what is possible, but the stories by Arthur Conan Doyle or H Ridder Haggard that inspired such movies tend to have genuinely 'heroic normal' characters, who never do anything a real world person couldn't actually do (the stories are just focusing on someone with a rather adventurous life, and the one who did survive to tell the tale).

When you translate that into RPGs... hmmm... I think the issue is that the Allan Quatermains and Lord John Roxtons of those tales are explicitly the characters do succeed by luck and appropriate use of skill, and we simply aren't bothering to read the exploits of the guy who swung the rope across the chasm and didn't catch the rock outcropping. In game terms, these are the characters who we already know what their dice rolls will be, and they will be low (and we'll use HERO system's 'rolling low is good' metric). If you take out the narrative conceit that you are only looking at the guys who succeeded, then these protagonists would appear to have some 'beyond guy at gym' abilities, that being unnatural luck.

I think, if we are playing an RPG (with random dice rolls), you might have to adjust the power scale/challenges-taken-on even lower, to something that a skilled and resourceful person could do reliably, and that might push the task below what someone might consider heroic.

[Great Dragon]

Some more Random thoughts:

I just remembered some things that could also cut some Multiclassing Mages down from their perch.

Again, going back to older Editions of D&D.
It was specifically stated that Mages were not allowed to cast spells while wearing Armor (Also, taking away the spell failure percentages) and this limitation applied even when Multiclassing.

Sure, it means the Soradin is less spiffy, but also means that the Fighter/Wizard (Diviner) isn't walking around in Adamantine Full Plate.

I also don't let Regular shield and Shield spell bonuses stack. Kills that +10 to AC (even if only for that round at 17th level) that very few Class/Subclasses can match. This also makes Players think harder about their options.

*****

Next, spell slots don't stack, and only apply to their own class.

Which kills the Coffeelock (Warlock spell slots cannot be converted into Sorcerer points), and stops the "never ending" Smite Palalock.

It also prevents Multiclassing Mages to Upcast otherwise low power spells into more powerful slots. Shows a true benefit to dedicated casters.

*****

Now, you might be thinking:
"But, that doesn't stop the Monk/Mage from being OP."

But, I offer the following:
Splitting those two classes means that the PC is most likely MAD, and the Player isn't getting the full benefits of either class, and anyone remaining focused on only one of those classes is going to be lots better at doing that class, then the Multiclassed PC.

*****

Yes, I know this is just reducing the vertical Power level of some Multiclassing Mages.

I'm still working on increasing the horizontal for Martials.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Again, going back to older Editions of D&D.
It was specifically stated that Mages were not allowed to cast spells while wearing Armor (Also, taking away the spell failure percentages) and this limitation applied even when Multiclassing.

Sure, it means the Soradin is less spiffy, but also means that the Fighter/Wizard (Diviner) isn't walking around in Adamantine Full Plate.

While "Surprise, wizards now all want full plate!" was a fairly dumb decision, if you're going to get rid of that you should provide some way for gishy characters to continue to exist. Elves have been able to do the armored mage thing since 1e, and gishing it up has been an increasingly popular archetype over the years.

Which kills the Coffeelock (Warlock spell slots cannot be converted into Sorcerer points), and stops the "never ending" Smite Palalock.

Honestly, I'm glad the Coffeelock exists, since the 5e warlock is basically a 4e warlock structurally (has a handful of at-will, per-encounter, and daily spells) and a Coffeelock lets you play a 3e warlock (has a bottomless well of low-level spells). Sometimes a bug really is a feature.

[Jakinbandw]

While "Surprise, wizards now all want full plate!" was a fairly dumb decision, if you're going to get rid of that you should provide some way for gishy characters to continue to exist. Elves have been able to do the armored mage thing since 1e, and gishing it up has been an increasingly popular archetype over the years.

If you want gishes though you would still have the arcane trickster, eldritch knight, bladesinger, and collage of swords. Also gishes always seemed like such an over reach "I want the power and versatility of a spellcaster while having the survivability and combat prowess of a buffed fighter." I think they really show what type of players want to minmax and try to make sure noone else at the table will have fun.

[Great Dragon]

While "Surprise, wizards now all want full plate!" was a fairly dumb decision, if you're going to get rid of that you should provide some way for gishy characters to continue to exist. Elves have been able to do the armored mage thing since 1e, and gishing it up has been an increasingly popular archetype over the years.

I don't count either Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster as "mage" for that "Armored Gish" effect.

Honestly, I'm glad the Coffeelock exists, since the 5e warlock is basically a 4e warlock structurally (has a handful of at-will, per-encounter, and daily spells) and a Coffeelock lets you play a 3e warlock (has a bottomless well of low-level spells). Sometimes a bug really is a feature.

I'm still learning 4e, but: Warlock
5e Scaling Cantrips (mostly) improved the at-will powers? and short rest refreshing Slots are encouter powers? Invocations being always-on enhancements?

See, if the Player was spending Sorcerer points (and maybe sacrificing Sorcerer spell slots) to renew Warlock slots, I might be more lenient. But I have yet to see that happen.

Got any ideas on boosts to just Warlocks?
While some of the 3x Invocations are easy to convert, not all are really useful.

I was thinking about changing the energy type (except Acid and Psychic) of Eldritch Blast to depending on Patron, and having an Invocation to change to Force/Radiant/Necrotic at higher level.

But, I kinda figured that would be unwelcomed by most Players. IDK.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Also gishes always seemed like such an over reach "I want the power and versatility of a spellcaster while having the survivability and combat prowess of a buffed fighter." I think they really show what type of players want to minmax and try to make sure noone else at the table will have fun.

Yes, you can be a gish who just chucks fireballs while wearing full plate, but that's not generally what that means. Gishing it up isn't about being 100% caster and 100% fighter, much like how a paladin isn't just a full cleric stapled to a full fighter; it's about giving up raw power on both sides to combine the two in a synergistic way, like the duskblade, magus, psychic warrior, abjurant champion, etc., which generally takes the form of playing like a fighter but using magic in place of weapons, armor, fighting styles, and the like.

I'm still learning 4e, but: Warlock
5e Scaling Cantrips (mostly) improved the at-will powers? and short rest refreshing Slots are encouter powers? Invocations being always-on enhancements?

Yep, cantrips are basically at-wills, spell slots are basically encounters, Mystic Arcanum are basically dailies, and invocations are basically either feats (for the passive benefits) or more powers (for the ones that just let you cast more spells).

See, if the Player was spending Sorcerer points (and maybe sacrificing Sorcerer spell slots) to renew Warlock slots, I might be more lenient. But I have yet to see that happen.

Well, firstly, the whole point is that you sacrifice warlock slots because they come back on a short rest, if you're sacrificing sorcerer slots you're not gaining anything and might as well be a pure sorcerer.

And secondly, the reaction to the Coffeelock is much like the initial reaction to the 3e warlock: "Oh noes, it gets bazillions of castings of weak spells, that must be overpowered (if you completely ignore the highly limited spells known and low power level of the spells available)!" On a cheese scale of soft brie to sharp cheddar, it barely rates as Velveeta.

Got any ideas on boosts to just Warlocks?

I mean, personally, I prefer to chuck it entirely in favor of a more 3e-like version, where you have basically no usage restrictions on your magic, you can modify your primary attack in lots of ways, and Eldritch Blast isn't just a cantrip that all the other casters take with Magic Initiate and make the warlock sad, so I'm not the best one to ask about that.

[Arbane]

What stops "guy at the gym" from being a hero in an RPG?

Isn't it just a matter of power scale?

Or does a character need to be capable of the impossible to be a heroic character?

(The HERO system specifically limits Heroic scale characters to normal characteristic maxes and no inherent superpowers.)

The Guy at the Gym can absolutely be a hero, as long as they're not constantly being chumped by people with actual superpowers, which generally requires some degree of Plot Control. Being able to SURVIVE doing heroic stuff would be a nice bonus, too, but that might require unrealistic abilities like being able to dodge bullets.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Most of those "classical heroes" were blatantly superhumans in some way or another... those were almost the superhero stories of their day.

Yes, I know. That's why I described them as necessarily superhuman.

I don't think someone needs to be the son of Zeus or the son of Krypton to be a hero.

To this I reply with the point you quoted: What is a hero? Is performing deeds beyond the capacity of normal humanity a critical component of heroism, as it is for classical heroes and superheroes? Or is it sufficient to have superhuman morality or determination, a will to do good exceeding that of normal people?

(I'd recommend against using D&D, flat out, but that's just me.)

Eh, it has its uses. It's the only decent level-based system I've been able to find, and those are ideal for introducing new roleplayers to a system while giving old hands something to work with.

Next, spell slots don't stack, and only apply to their own class.

Which kills the Coffeelock (Warlock spell slots cannot be converted into Sorcerer points), and stops the "never ending" Smite Palalock.

It also prevents Multiclassing Mages to Upcast otherwise low power spells into more powerful slots. Shows a true benefit to dedicated casters.

It's easy to recognize a feature as something that makes a given build powerful. It's harder to recognize whether removing that feature will get you what you want. Doing this puts us back in the 3.5 paradigm where multiclassing out of casting classes (save for prestige classes giving +1 level of previous spellcasting class) was worthless. Dedicated casters have true benefits. They can cast higher-level spells (nearly always better than upcasting low-level spells) and have access to higher-level class features (which, unlike in 3.5, actually matter).
Messing with the new system that WotC designers put together isn't worth crippling a theoretical monstrosity and a potent build.

And secondly, the reaction to the Coffeelock is much like the initial reaction to the 3e warlock: "Oh noes, it gets bazillions of castings of weak spells, that must be overpowered (if you completely ignore the highly limited spells known and low power level of the spells available)!" On a cheese scale of soft brie to sharp cheddar, it barely rates as Velveeta.

In theory, you can set up the core components of a coffeelock at low levels where raw 1st-level spells are still potent and then skip long rests long enough to build up a ludicrous supply of spell slots, letting you toss guiding bolts and burning handss like cantrips at levels where they are significantly more powerful than cantrips.
In practice, if the DM remembers that people need to sleep, you'll need some extra component that takes extra effort and levels to set up.

The Guy at the Gym can absolutely be a hero, as long as they're not constantly being chumped by people with actual superpowers, which generally requires some degree of Plot Control. Being able to SURVIVE doing heroic stuff would be a nice bonus, too, but that might require unrealistic abilities like being able to dodge bullets.

That, or give them some kind of separate skill (like being good at tactics, if your world's powers don't include convenient divination) that none of their allies or enemies have.

[Great Dragon]

Spoiler: Me

Show

1) Counter:
(A) Which Caster has the ability to non-magically double their Hit Points?

(B) Without Racial perks or Multiclassing, wear armor that makes hitting them difficult? (Mage Max AC = 23)

(C) Do an extra 9d6 damage whenever a friend is near? Sometimes not even needing that.

2) So, I suppose that the Martial with Leadership and at least decent Charisma can’t convince the local Army to come help out against the threat to the region? Oh, wait that require Roleplaying !! Dice Rolls optional.

3) Um - only the Cleric has the power to actually reverse/cheat death - not the Mages.
Avoid death? Maybe, for a little while, anyway.

4) No one should be able to do everything. Regardless of Class.
Especially in a tRPG designed for Group Play.

What does non-magical have to do with anything.
I never requested for the martials to get a magical increase in potency AND flexibility. I just want them to also increase in both mechanical choice and mechanical power. Choice every level or so and power every second. Please. Preferably at an accelerated pace for the power.

My point there was: there are things the Martials can do, that Caster's really can't duplicate, and even when they can, is only in a very limited fashion.

And just for giggles:
A) Bladesinger. Song of Defense doesn't mention magic, just consuming spell slots.

Which is in the same boat as a Smiting Paladin.
Smiting Warlocks are even more limited.
Burning your slots actually reduces the PC's options and flexibility in that combat.

B) Weird contrived scenario. Hexblade level 10 (not that the armour matters much...) (Forge) Cleric, maybe with a Dodge action on top because, y'know they don't need the action to deal damage that often. Magic Jar. Shapechange. True Polymorph. Other ways of getting around this…

Off that list, I'll say the Mages should not have both Shapechange and True Polymorph.
To me, Shapechanging is a Druid thing.

C) Willy the Extra-Planar Whisperer. His Friendly Neighborhood Extra-Terrestrials don't even need him on the same continent.

Was Willy a Whisper Bard?

But again. Who really cares about 9d6 damage? It's 31,5 average without modifying for misses. The Evocation Wizard probably didn't even want to take 25,5 certain, never miss damage.

So, the Wizard does less damage each hit, and only a few times a day; where Rogue is still rocking that "mere" 10 to 13+31 (5 from 1d8 + 5 Dex +3 magic plus Sneak Attack) damage almost every round (assuming a 30% miss chance and no AoO) all day long….

2) *sniff sniff* smells like Stormwind Fallacy. Yes, DM can help you. Nice. And this option isn't open to the caster who can also add extraterrestrial allies, because?? Oh, because nothing.

GMs that only help one type of class, aren't really running the game as intended.

I've already addressed Planar Binding.
And Plane Shift is being covered by others.

Mostly, I find that the various Summons (which are the most common) are basically the Caster adding a few Mooks into the combat. A warrior at anything over 5th level that is properly equipped can deal with even 8 wolves (giant wolf Spiders are a little harder, but only if they hit, and the warrior fails their Con save and is then attacking with Disadvantage) attacking them.

And even being able to bring in a CR 10 Devil with Infernal Calling (costing the Mage their only 9th level slot) isn't much of a threat to most CR 17+ Challenges. Plus, said Devil is hostile to the Mage and allies; and the mage losing Concentration frees the Devil to do whatever it wants for three minutes….

Clerics burning a 7th level slot for a CR 5 Celestial (Unicorn), is really pathetic, IMO.
But, like stated above, even the CR 10 Deva wouldn't really make too much difference.

3) Clone. Resurrection. Contingency. Wish.

I guess these are just dependant too much on the GM.

4) Is this even a point? If yes, for whom?

I might have had a random thought, and can't remember what my point was. So, I'll skip this.

The combination of power, utility and flexibility; the growth and quality of mechanically supported player agency was.

But, several people have tried to address this - including the making of 4e (which I'm trying to learn), and I still see lots of "it's not enough" complaints.

Edit]C) make the world press casters between adventures - ie make them chased so they can't spend downtime to build armies, always have escape mechanisms prepared, avoid fame, etc. It doesn't make the class chassis weaker, but it prevents them from snowballing

See, these are some things that can happen in my games. I'm not arguing that Mages don't have power, but I'm saying that having that power causes problems that make it difficult for them. Everyone with any kind of Status (money or political position) is going to bother the Mage/s for everything from "Solving a small problem" to making custom magical items (that burn Downtime). Even if the Mage manages to get an escape Mechanism in place, there are ways to counter that, or force them to use it while being pursued (putting a trap or Ambush at the "safe" location, if known)

Being Famous is a double sided blade (and affects all classes differently) or at least should be.

Really, Casters other than Clerics try to avoid being too well known. It's why the Hermit Mage/Druid is a trope.

@Fable Wright: check here, as well.

Nothing says 'I fight dragons' like launching harpoons out of a Dragonslayer Greatbow. Or allowing said harpoons to initiate a ranged grapple. Nothing says "Fightin' Man" like wrenching a dragon out of the sky with your mighty thews, before taking out your lance and ending them rightly.

This is indeed awesome. Thanks for the idea!

Short summary: If the game says a player can play a Nth level X but the mechanics don't let them instantiate a Nth level X but would let them instantiate a 2Nth level Y. The player get disappointed that they can't instantiate a 2Nth level X.

Ok. But then someone might be able to come up with a 1.5 N level B.
But, because they are stuck complaining about both X and Y, they reject it.

That actually sounds like it could be fun, with the right group.

Indeed. Finding that Group can be challenging, though.