Is spellcasting in the new edition going to be significantly less interesting? [Archive]

Giant in the Playground Forums > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > > Is spellcasting in the new edition going to be significantly less interesting?

PDA

View Full Version : Is spellcasting in the new edition going to be significantly less interesting?

Pages :1[2]

GeneralVryth

2024-07-20, 11:12 AM

For evoker you should start using magic missile after level 10 because evokers will apply their Int bonus on it. Also cone of cold, fireball and fire bolt will get bonus on their damage as well

That's not any better than the blast spells. At level 10 a MM with a 3rd level slot is 5d4+10 damage or 22.5 average, with a level 5 slot it's 7d4+12 or 29.5. The level 10 Evoker bonus only applies to 1 missile. But I did admittedly forget the bonus on the blast spells.

But if I were a wizard trying to do single-target damage -

5th level wizard -
summon fey + cantrip: 19.79 (4.29 rounds)

10th level wizard
polymorph, giant ape: 42.7 DPR against the CR 10 creature (3.7 rounds)
animate objects, tiny + cantrip: 72.04 DPR (2.3 rounds)
summon elemental + cantrip: 39.8 DPR (4.02 rounds)

Granted, summon spells can be fragile, especially animate objects. If the boss has a good AoE, they might be able to wipe out most or all of them in a single go. But ideal conditions or close to it, and the wizard has surpassed their 5th level self

Side note, cone of cold is terrible. Hitting Con saves is damning for it. My guess is it's a little easier to hit more creatures with it though

So the Evoker, a character whose entire subclass is designed around doing damage with Evocation spells, shouldn't use Evocation spells, and shouldn't be judged by their ability to do damage? Also, CR 5 opponent is meant as an easy/medium challenge for a party of level 5 characters. There very well may be only 1 target. Same with CR 10 and level 10 characters.

Btw, we also know Polymorph is getting nerfed in 5e24, it would not surprise me if the same is true for Animated Objects.

Skrum

2024-07-20, 12:49 PM

Btw, we also know Polymorph is getting nerfed in 5e24, it would not surprise me if the same is true for Animated Objects.

The evoker blasts just fine. But blasting spells are meant to be used against a bunch of enemies. They're lackluster against single targets. Presumably the player knew that when selecting evoker.

Rafaelfras

2024-07-20, 03:19 PM

More to the point, damage isn't the only thing wizards can do. In fact, it's fairly low on the list of things they can do. Barb on the other hand, yeah it's kind of the only thing they can do. That and stand there and get hit (which I'm not disparaging, it's an important thing, but not really relevant to this).
Yeah, of all 5e classes barbarian is the one I have least experience with as is the only one that my party does not have besides druid (although I have played with druids at a time). So my insight on then is lacking compared to everything else. But on a design perspective it was the only class that I found lacking. So when people bring barbarians to the table I can understand.
Also looking at all the changes coming to the class it seems that there really was something missing.

The evoker blasts just fine. But blasting spells are meant to be used against a bunch of enemies. They're lackluster against single targets. Presumably the player knew that when selecting evoker.

A big part of the reason wizards are so good is they have almost no opportunity costs. An evoker can grab polymorph or a summon spell or a debuff and contribute a lot even when their main thing, AoE, isn't needed.
And use magic missile to do single target damage.
But yeah, mixing aoe spells with MM and polymorph and wall of force is what make the wizard great.

Slipjig

2024-07-20, 03:42 PM

^ This - "Predominantly nonmagical character who uses equipment and skill to keep up with their more supernatural allies" is a perfectly valid character concept. Batman can fight Darkseid just like Hawkeye can fight Loki, and both are cool.
In single-author fiction, anybody can go toe-to-toe with anybody if that's what the author wants to happen. Pretty much every Big Bad in the Marvel Universe has been taken down by Squirrel Girl, who is probably Level 1/2.
It's a valid character concept in fiction, but to make it work in a TTRPG you would need to to either a) keep the supernaturals weak enough that Badass Mortals aren't completely irrelevant (the Buffy route), or b) have the mortals graduate to quasi-superhero status somewhere along the line (e.g. Marvel Hercules when he's with the Avengers). D&D doesn't do a), and a very vocal group of players object to b).
The problem with equating TTRPGs to fiction is that fiction doesn't usually do the whole "levelling-up" thing. Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn are exactly as powerful at the end of LotR as they are at the beginning (probably about 5th level). Hawkeye and Black Widow have been at exactly the same power level for the last 40 years (probably about 5th level).

Rafaelfras

2024-07-20, 03:56 PM

That is incorrect framing. What I actually inquired was how do you build a weapon based feature that is comparable to Wish. Magic loot is not a class feature, unless, like Skrum suggested, some sort of class ability is included that guarantees certain classes certain items at certain times....which means Artificers should not have infusions, Rogues, Fighters, Barbarians, etc should.

More Importantly, as we can see by the Vorpal Blade, Magic Items made for Martials are often just weaker than items for Casters. A Staff of Power has no restriction on the item's use against targets.

The Hero Sigurd, in Germanic myth, acquired the magic sword Gram, because it could kill the dragon Fafnir. In 5e, that is just now how it works.

A Vorpal Blade not being able to slay a legendary creature is an arbitrary line of demarcation, because the devs were afraid, (I would even go so far as to call them cowardly), that a random attack roll might actually just kill the big bad.....which is the entire F-ing point of a VORPAL BLADE.

S-Tier Foes, Demon Lords, Gods, Elemental Princes, Lich Archmages....these foes can die bodily, and come back.

Outright dying to Massive Damage for players, largely goes away by 4th level, but it still exists....if Hit Points inflation needs to happen, in order for 5e to function, then weapon attacks become slog-fests, in which the most powerful weapons of myth, like Gram, become dull butter knives for us to wheedle away at a pool of 300+ hit points. That is not particularly exciting, nor is it 'realism'.

Sorry Raf, I find your response lacking, (no offense meant).

None taken really.
To we get to a better understanding I need to know from you: what is comparable to wish in your opinion?
Case in point, a martial could get an ability that simply kills an enemy. In fact the assassin rogue new mortal strike gets close to that because of how much damage it does. Our assassin was lucky because the update to mortal strike came just when we got to level 17 and I implemented it promptly. But you could simply replace the damage for "the target dies" on a failed save. Would that be enough?
In terms of damage from martials I can tell from experience, they do a lot. A LOT. To the point that I really need to do some inflation on my bosses or they just die on 2 rounds.
I understand that the Vorpal blade don't kill a legendary creature the same way they can use legendary resistance against spells. But the Vorpal blade has + damage built in for such occasions (or when the enemy does not have a head). Normally when a boss dies from this damage I narrate as a decapitation. But would a Vorpal blade working as normal if the boss has spent all his LRs be a good compromise?
I know that sometimes a hit kill may be anticlimactic, but if done right is just as awesome for a BBEG be killed in a single hit. I know, I used to use the 3rd edition optional rule for instant death (got a 20 on a crit check, roll again for instant kill). I ported it to 5th as my sole house rule (got a double 20 on an attack with advantage? The target dies).
Our monk has a petrifying sword (+3 hit and dmg and the target needs to save for restrained and again for petrified) and I plan to give a Vorpal sword to our fighter. I am not against a martial outright killing an boss. But there are also bosses that I want to give a little more before they go. So LR help me with that.
The excitement usually comes from the big numbers they get during the fight.

Psyren

2024-07-20, 04:07 PM

In single-author fiction, anybody can fight anybody can go toe-to-toe with anybody if that's what the author wants to happen. Pretty much every Big Bad in the Marvel Universe has been taken down by Squirrel Girl, who is probably Level 1/2.

Squirrel Girl isn't the archetype I'm referring to though. She uses Rule of Funny / Toon Force to win, not gear; she's closer to other joke characters like Gwenpool than she is to Hawkeye.

It's a valid character concept in fiction, but to make it work in a TTRPG you would need to to either a) keep the supernaturals weak enough that Badass Mortals aren't completely irrelevant (the Buffy route), or b) have the mortals graduate to quasi-superhero status somewhere along the line (e.g. Marvel Hercules when he's with the Avengers). D&D doesn't do a), and a very vocal group of players object to b).

Or... option (c), items. When Merry helped take down the Witch-King of Angmar, he didn't "graduate to quasi-superhero status somewhere along the line." He had a barrow-blade, a magic weapon, and he had gotten better at fighting over the course of his travels. None of that is objectionable or incompatible with D&D last time I checked.

The problem with equating TTRPGs to fiction is that fiction doesn't usually do the whole "levelling-up" thing. Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn are exactly as powerful at the end of LotR as they are at the beginning (probably about 5th level). Hawkeye and Black Widow have been at exactly the same power level for the last 40 years (probably about 5th level).

The "levelling-up thing" is what we would call a "character arc" in other media. Like Captain America going from barely being able to shift Mjolnir to expertly wielding it against Thanos. Or Hawkeye going from being Loki's puppet to being a key component of his downfall.

But what you're pointing out is another advantage of magic items - they're another way to represent progression even when characters' innate capabilities stay static. You might not actually level up in a one-shot, but you can still get better or additional gear.

Kane0

2024-07-20, 04:37 PM

Let mid to high level martials apply system shock on crits or if they have advantage and both rolls would hit?
It would give them a way to pressure legendary resistances if nothing else.

Amnestic

2024-07-20, 05:11 PM

SLike Captain America going from barely being able to shift Mjolnir to expertly wielding it against Thanos.

Not that it's really the point but Cap chose not to move it, because it was important to Thor('s ego) - who noticed. That's why he said "I knew it" in Endgame. It wasn't anything to do with skill or a character arc, in that case. He was always worthy, and always capable. He just wasn't willing to jeopardise his friendship with Thor for the sake of a party trick that grand scheme didn't really matter.

I'm sure there's a caster-martial equivalent you could draw if you cared to, but mostly I'm just correcting extremely minor movie trivia.

Slipjig

2024-07-20, 05:52 PM

Squirrel Girl isn't the archetype I'm referring to though. She uses Rule of Funny / Toon Force to win, not gear; she's closer to other joke characters like Gwenpool than she is to Hawkeye.

My point was that "X has fought Y" doesn't carry much weight. Squirrel Girl is just an extreme example, Batman fighting Darkseid is just as silly (unless he's winning through extreme preparation and environmental factors that render his "level" irrelevant).

I would agree that the Hobbits go from Level 0 to probably Level 2-3 over the course of the books. Going from homebody to adventurer (or any other origin story) is one of the places where we DO tend to see people "level-up" in fiction (the other being a training montage). But, again, none of the characters in LotR are above Level 5 (except for maybe Gandalf). It's a low-powered enough story that T1 characters can still meaningfully contribute. You notice that Merry was NOT grappling a troll, he was doing a Sneak Attack with a magic weapon on a level-appropriate Boss monster.

And... "doing the same thing I've always done, but better" isn't what a "character arc" means. A character arc consists of a character changing internally. Thor (in his first movie) starting out as an arrogant jerkface, seeing the consequences of his actions and losing his power, spending some time around humans and realizing he wants to STOP being a jerkface... that's a character arc.

"I graduate from casting Scorching Ray to casting Fireball" is NOT a character arc, unless the Wizard had to undergo some serious personal growth in the process. It COULD be, if it turns out the reason his powers were blocked was [checks list] unresolved guilt over failing to prevent his parents' death, and forgiving himself finally allows him to unlock the power. But that's definitely not the norm in levelling-up in D&D.

Psyren

2024-07-20, 06:18 PM

But it's not silly. He didn't solo Darkseid or anything, he was severely outmatched, but he was nevertheless able to meaningfully contribute to his defeat. That's called teamwork, and it's not hard to translate to D&D either.

I never said anything about Merry grappling a troll, bold is the only admission I care about.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-21, 02:20 AM

But would a Vorpal blade working as normal if the boss has spent all his LRs be a good compromise?

I think that is an excellent design space. Instead of Legendary Resistance just providing auto-success on Saving Throws, it might be interesting if LR in addition to providing an auto success on Saving Throws, also worked on opposed skill checks, critical hits, weapon special abilities etc.

If Legendary Resistance points, in effect fuel a Legendary Creature's defensive capabilities, then Vorpal Weapon procs and the like, would help deplete those resources, much as a Monk's Stunning Strikes do currently.

The Devs, then do not need to put restrictions on top tier martial oriented magic items, for fear that a Fighter using Action Surge, while Hasted, can just get lucky and end an encounter.

Wish is the "mightiest magic available to mortals", and thus I am not sure anything could really be designed to compare with it. The flexibility of being able to replicate any spell of 8th level or lower as an action is very potent, and spells like Forbiddance can end an Encounter before the party even sees the foes.

There was no 2024 video about Magic Items, to my knowledge, but I hope that the Devs went through the Magic Item list and buffed a bunch of items, and removed Attunement requirements for a tranche of items as well.

Schwann145

2024-07-21, 03:01 AM

I don't think the DC comparisons really serve anything here. D&D stories don't have an author pulling illogical strings to make characters work.

Superman and Wonder Woman can't dodge Darkseid's Omega Beams. Batman can and has. That's absurd on it's face and only exists because of plot-armor/PIS desired by the author; there is zero internal logic or consistency being applied here.

Skrum

2024-07-21, 07:41 AM

I don't think the DC comparisons really serve anything here. D&D stories don't have an author pulling illogical strings to make characters work.

Kind of the same reason why Piccolo is one of the only characters to lose an arm in DBZ, and it's happened to him like 19 times - he can regenerate, there for it's fine to happen to him! Lol.

Supes and WW can plausibly tank the Omega Beams, there for they "can't" dodge them. Batman, well it would be completely ridiculous for him to survive a direct hit, there for he needs to dodge them. The outcome is decided first, and the author works backwards from there. When that happens in DND, we call it rail roading and generally frown upon it.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-21, 07:55 AM

While I agree with your post,, (and this is not directed at anyone in particular), but it burns me when people say that money can not be used in 5e. Why not use it like Conan did?

Conan, (and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser), spent gold on Wine, and Companionship, and presumably later on, on winning a kingdom.
I know someone already talked about how there are rules really in place for this, and you replied that they aren't needed but in my experience they are. Now, that's not to say that some DMs aren't up to it, but I know one of my DMs would feel that a system would need to be in place for this, and would not (at this point in the campaign) be up to implementing one to begin kingdom management.

The group of twelve year olds I DM for can figure out how to creatively spend gold...seems like something adults can figure out as well. (Sorry Pet Peeve).
Lol, classy. I'd say the group of twelve year olds you're DMing for aren't in charge, you are. So it's more that you're figuring it out, not them.

Kind of the same reason why Piccolo is one of the only characters to lose an arm in DBZ, and it's happened to him like 19 times - he can regenerate, there for it's fine to happen to him! Lol.

But yeah, I entirely agree with your point. Fiction, generally, is only comparable to DND if DND was being played with comically exaggerated critical fails/success for all d20 rolls, and the good guys are using with weighted die.
I'd wager that for many people, this is precisely how the game is played. If you don't need to visit the floating island in the sky until your wizard can upcast the Fly spell then... the DM is curating the fiction to your abilities.

Psyren

2024-07-21, 10:33 AM

I don't think the DC comparisons really serve anything here. D&D stories don't have an author pulling illogical strings to make characters work.

I don't know anything about him dodging Omega Beams, nor am I saying it's impossible for comic writing to be bad. (I mean, seriously, come on.)

What I AM saying is that it's possible for badass normals to contribute meaningfully to taking down a villain above their weight class in a team scenario. If you disagree with that premise, or disagree that it can be translated to D&D in any way, that's completely fine for you to believe that - but it means that we have nothing further to discuss on this topic, and that D&D will continue to disappoint you by continuing to side with my view, so you may as give a different game that doesn't have badass normals in it a try, like Exalted.

And if you do agree it's possible but simply that DC and Marvel aren't examples you care for, that's fine too, substitute one that you think works better. As for me, I'm going to keep using them.

KorvinStarmast

2024-07-21, 11:24 AM

For starters, this was something that was part of an earlier conception of D&D and it's a tremendous shame that it's been lost over the years. Depends on the table where one plays
5E's primary design imperative was allowing standardized drop-in-drop-out play via Adventurer's League where the only constant is the PC.
There is some truth in that, but the game itself does assume a DM who is the world builder. It's in the very text of the core books.

Let mid to high level martials apply system shock on crits or if they have advantage and both rolls would hit?
It would give them a way to pressure legendary resistances if nothing else. Yes. Good way to bring system shock back into the game. :smallsmile: (And if you fail the system shock roll after being dropped to 0 HP you get a level of exhaustion ... yes, fiddly, but I think it "feels" right).

What I AM saying is that it's possible for badass normals to contribute meaningfully to taking down a villain above their weight class in a team scenario. Yes. D&D works best as a team game.

TaiLiu

2024-07-21, 11:35 AM

I know someone already talked about how there are rules really in place for this, and you replied that they aren't needed but in my experience they are. Now, that's not to say that some DMs aren't up to it, but I know one of my DMs would feel that a system would need to be in place for this, and would not (at this point in the campaign) be up to implementing one to begin kingdom management.

I'd love to have a tower from which my level 13 fighter operates out of, and to hire henchmen and the like. But alas, this would require some investment from my DM that he's not willing to add in addition to running the rest of the game. I think the people say this about 5e is precisely because it doesn't really have rules for this.
Yes, exactly. Of course the DM can create rules and subsystems and hack D&D for just about anything possible. That also encourages burnout and shouldn't be a default DM expectation. We shouldn't pretend D&D 5e has something it doesn't just because it could have it.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-21, 06:06 PM

Lol, classy. I'd say the group of twelve year olds you're DMing for aren't in charge, you are. So it's more that you're figuring it out, not them.

No, the children are clearly in charge. Im only DM-ing because I know the rules and read the books, (they havent). The world, the game themes, etc are what they came up with. I make tweaks, but these children are creative, innovative, motivated, and running the show.

The Stronghold Building rules in the DMG are broken, due to building progress not being possible if the PC is not on site, which is silly given that in real life history Richard the Lionheart had the castle of Chateau Gaillard built while in Germany, if I remember correctly.

That said, if you ignore that bit of lousy rules, you at least get costs.
Im sorry to hear about your DMs decisions. Nothing builds player investment more than letting them put down roots, and player investment makes a DMs creative design load easier to shoulder.

The meme of the murder-hobo McGuffin quest, puts the creative burden squarely on the shoulders of the DM, whereas a player driven narrative means the players are calling the shots and the DM just needs to fill in details, and add a twist or two.

Schwann145

2024-07-21, 10:41 PM

What I AM saying is that it's possible for badass normals to contribute meaningfully to taking down a villain above their weight class in a team scenario.

I agree with this premise. I'm just saying the comparisons being used don't actually show that happening in a way that can be translated to the game. Batman keeps up because the author forces the issue, not because he could actually keep up.

If the Fighter could only keep up because the DM forces the issue, that would be a pretty huge problem for the game overall.

Psyren

2024-07-21, 10:54 PM

If the Fighter could only keep up because the DM forces the issue, that would be a pretty huge problem for the game overall.

So you don't view a single one of those Badass Normal stories as remotely plausible outside of author fiat?

And again, if superhero media don't work for you but you agree with the premise, what does?

Skrum

2024-07-21, 11:14 PM

So you don't view a single one of those Badass Normal stories as remotely plausible outside of author fiat?

And again, if superhero media don't work for you but you agree with the premise, what does?

Without commenting on this specific question, do you not see the problem of having Hawkeye and Thor in the same party, in a TTRPG? Like that doesn't set off any red flags at all? Especially when the two are presented in the book as being "equal?" (Not saying that 5e actually has any gaps as wide as Hawkeye and Thor, but for the sake of argument).

Schwann145

2024-07-21, 11:48 PM

So you don't view a single one of those Badass Normal stories as remotely plausible outside of author fiat?

And again, if superhero media don't work for you but you agree with the premise, what does?

Well, I think D&D power gets massively overhyped such that nothing in game is even remotely comparable to the power gap you can find in comics, anime, etc. So finding an example of the "badass normal guy" contributing to the "superhero story" is hard to even find.

Even in LotR, Gandalf is offscreen for his big wizarding.

I think examples we can actually point to are examples where the person is in the right place at the right time, and their contribution has almost nothing to do with their own capability. (Captain Stacy at the end of the Amazing Spider-Man movie, for instance.)

Psyren

2024-07-22, 12:38 AM

Correct, I don't. Not only is it readily achievable, I see people regularly come to D&D looking for that specific dynamic to begin with.

(I'm more inclined to use "Doctor Strange" than "Thor" in such examples though given the tricky nature of representing playable deities; it still gets the point across.)

"Superhero comics" cover a huge conceptual range though. You can have cosmic threats like Thanos and Galactus, street-level threats like Kingpin or Bane, and everything in between. Yes, at the very highest end comics will have a much larger power gap than anything in (playable) D&D, stuff like Living Tribunal or the Celestials or Dr. Manhattan or Odinforce go way beyond anything that even D&D is capable of representing on the page. But if you dial it down a few tiers, something simpler like... the Avengers fighting Loki while his minion army tries to open a portal is, I think, a lot closer to what the climax of a mid-high level D&D campaign would entail. It's doable.

Even in LotR, Gandalf is offscreen for his big wizarding.

To which I say, okay - and so what if he is? :smallconfused:

It's been a very long time since I saw that movie, could you elaborate?

Schwann145

2024-07-22, 01:52 AM

(I'm more inclined to use "Doctor Strange" than "Thor" in such examples though given the tricky nature of representing playable deities; it still gets the point across.)
I believe Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) were already mentioned, but if I'm mistaken, allow me to do so. :smalltongue:

To which I say, okay - and so what if he is? :smallconfused:

Merry and Eowyn didn't need him around to beat the Witch-King. Arwen Glorfindel didn't need him around to chase offthe Nazgul. Sam Gamgee didn't need him around to stab Shelob. Let Gandalf be offscreen, you can still have plenty of climactic boss encounters without him. He's a solar anyway.
They didn't need Gandalf around, but how worthless would they seem in comparison if he was around to help solve these problems?
What does a tier 1 party look like when they have a Solar tagging along to help?
Gandalf had to be off screen so he wouldn't utterly dominate the limelight.

It's been a very long time since I saw that movie, could you elaborate?
Sure thing.
Spidey is fighting the Lizard at the top of a building to prevent Lizard from altering the dna of everyone in the city. Captain Stacy shows up with the "antidote" that Spidey needs to solve the situation (and turn Dr. Connors back into a human) and he spends several moments with a shotgun, some coolant pipes (or something conveniently placed to slow Lizard's regeneration down), and gumption to serve as enough of a distraction for Spidey to get the job done, before being quickly and easily murdered when his right place/time tactic wore out.

The times I've seen him go toe-to-toe with Darkseid, he either did use his brains to win, or he got his ass handed to him and barely stayed alive until he could get bailed out by a hero with powers. Maybe he threw on some power armor so he could tank a few hits while enacting his plan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5uBNiHJV2I), but that goes right back to the whole "gear" point I've been making.
I find gear, magic items, etc to be a wonderful solve to keep lagging characters relevant.
But 5e explicitly says that items are not assumed. The game (this edition anyway) is designed with the notion that a zero-magic-item game is reasonably balanced from 1 to 20.
In other words, the D&D Devs say, "it was neat that Batman had that power armor, but he definitely didn't *need* it."
He did need it though. We can all see he did.

Psyren

2024-07-22, 02:29 AM

I believe Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) were already mentioned, but if I'm mistaken, allow me to do so. :smalltongue:

Wow, a 17-year-old meme! So fresh and exciting! :smallsigh:

They didn't need Gandalf around, but how worthless would they seem in comparison if he was around to help solve these problems?
What does a tier 1 party look like when they have a Solar tagging along to help?
Gandalf had to be off screen so he wouldn't utterly dominate the limelight.

So you agree the normals can do cool things without having him around then?

Sure thing.
Spidey is fighting the Lizard at the top of a building to prevent Lizard from altering the dna of everyone in the city. Captain Stacy shows up with the "antidote" that Spidey needs to solve the situation (and turn Dr. Connors back into a human) and he spends several moments with a shotgun, some coolant pipes (or something conveniently placed to slow Lizard's regeneration down), and gumption to serve as enough of a distraction for Spidey to get the job done, before being quickly and easily murdered when his right place/time tactic wore out.

He sounds like an NPC to me. And that's fine, you can put those in encounters too.

5e explicitly says that items are not assumed.

No it doesn't, and I debunked that lie several pages back. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?669004-Is-spellcasting-in-the-new-edition-going-to-be-significantly-less-interesting&p=26044369&viewfull=1#post26044369) Once again you're revealing your lack of familiarity with what the core rulebooks actually say.

Schwann145

2024-07-22, 03:39 AM

Wow, a 17-year-old meme! So fresh and exciting! :smallsigh:
Age has yet to diminish it's relevancy, however.

So you agree the normals can do cool things without having him around then?
The normals cannot do cool things while they are around. They require the separation in order to do cool things.

He sounds like an NPC to me. And that's fine, you can put those in encounters too.
It's a Spider-Man movie - everyone other than Spider-Man is an NPC. The problem is that Hawkeye is an NPC in a Thor movie just as much as Captain Stacy is an NPC in a Spider-Man movie.

The D&D game is built on the assumption that magic items appear sporadically and that they are always a boon, unless an item bears a curse. Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items, which means that having a magic item always makes a character more powerful than a generic character of the same level. As DM, you never have to worry about awarding magic items just so the characters can keep up with the campaign's threats. Magic items are truly prizes. Are they useful? Absolutely. Are they necessary? No.

Kane0

2024-07-22, 04:09 AM

Hey, something from Xan's i actually agree with!

Arkhios

2024-07-22, 04:39 AM

Yes. D&D works best as a team game.

Ouch! :smallbiggrin:

Amnestic

2024-07-22, 04:51 AM

They can't write "magic items only appear sporadically" and then wrap you in them in every single adventure they print.

I did this summary a while back for a few of the printed modules and what you get out of them:-

4 spellbooks, containing a variey of 1st+2nd level spells
1 spellbook of 1st-3rd level spells
3 3rd level spell scrolls
Silvered Skull Flail +4d6 necrotic and disadvantage on all saves (no save) - Kinda nuts that you get this at 2nd level, but that's what the module says.
Bag of Beans
Potion of Fire Breath
7 Potions of Healing
1 Potion of Greater Healing
Pipes of the Sewers
+1 Mace that can also shed light within 10' as an action.
+2 variable weapon that depends on the character who takes it.
Shield of the Hidden Lord (Legendary) - Shield +2, resistance to fire, can cast fireball x3 or wall of fire x1 + fireball x1 each LR, frightened aura with an action.
1 soul coin
Potion of Giant Strength (Frost)
Bracers of Defense
Elemental Gem

+1 arrow
Continual Flame Torch
Continual Flame Candle
7 2nd level spell scrolls
4 1st level spell scrolls
Feather Token (Tree)
3 Elixir of Health
Potion of Fire Resistance
"Night Caller" wondrous item - 1/day Animate Dead
1 Potion of Healing
Wand of Entangle

Potential:
5 Potion of Healing
2 1st level scrolls

+1 Rapier
+1 Longsword
+2 Greataxe
+1 Shield
2 Potion of Climbing
2 Potion of Healing
2 Potion of Water Breathing
Potion of Invisibility
Potion of Flying
Ring of Spell Storing(!)
Potion of Hill Giant Strength
5 1st level spell scrolls
1 2nd level spell scrolls
Wand of Magic Missiles

Potential:
3 Potion of Healing

More recently the Candlekeep Mysteries 1st level adventure provides two driftglobes, two potions of healing, and a +1 flail. A +1 item! At 1st level! One of the Adventure League adventures I checked (Murder in Skyway) does the same thing, with an Insignia of Claws. To any who'd take issue with the above examples, I invite you to check other published 5e material and provide your own summaries of loot and the level band in which you acquire them.

If they want magic items to be sporadic they would do well to reflect that in the material they publish to play the game. But they don't, because...it's not, not really. They're meant to be getting a bunch of magic items every level, some consumable, some not, because it's more fun that way.

Kane0

2024-07-22, 05:14 AM

They can't write "magic items only appear sporadically" and then wrap you in them in every single adventure they print.

Meanwhile my level 7 artificer still doesnt have plate in PotA lol. We do have a +1 dagger, a driftglobe and some scrolls of skywrite though! Our wand of magic missiles broke after running out of charges, and I think we got offered an amulet of health too but that guy was super shifty.

Amnestic

2024-07-22, 06:02 AM

I've not played/run it personally but I have heard that the main stuff of PotA is "surprisingly stingy" while the "optional sidequests" have more stuff in them. So I guess PotA might be the one exception?

JellyPooga

2024-07-22, 06:27 AM

This thread has got me thinking...are D&D spells getting it backwards?

The paradigm is this;
a) Wizards (etc.) have spell slots
b) Spend spell slot, effect happens
c) Roll to see if anything happens as a result
d) Cry in beer or celebrate your inevitable victory, as appropriate.

The problem with this is that some spells have part (c) and that some don't. This makes balance almost impossible, especially when you start having "partial effects".

I think it's pretty safe to say that, assuming spellcasting is resource based and sanitised for the masses, when a spell is cast, it should do something. This is why the classic Bless vs. Bane favours the former. It's why Legendary Resistance is problematic. The argument has already been made so I won't repeat it here, but I have a solution I've not seen before...stop spellcasters being damage dealers.

Yup, that's it. Damage is the baliwick of martials, I think that's relatively accepted. So why is it that when a spell has a partial effect, the bit that remains is usually the damage and not the effect? Entangle is a great example of the kind of spell I'd like to see be the standard; yeah, you can save against the effect, but you still need to deal with the difficult terrain. What if, in a similar vein, we made Fireball set everything/everyond on fire with a save to avoid taking additional damage, or made Cone of Cold freeze foes in place with a save to avoid taking damage. Would the spellcasting experience be more satisfying if your fail-state wasn't "do nothing, you suck", but "your resource is useful, you just don't get a bonus", or perhaps a more fail-forward approach?

Thoughts?

Xervous

2024-07-22, 06:34 AM

This thread has got me thinking...are D&D spells getting it backwards?

The problem with this is that some spells have part (c) and that some don't. This makes balance almost impossible, especially when you start having "partial effects".

Thoughts?

Weve seen how the monkey paw curls on this train of thought, you get PF2e spells.

JellyPooga

2024-07-22, 06:43 AM

Weve seen how the monkey paw curls on this train of thought, you get PF2e spells.

Can't say I'm familiar with PF2e at all, so I can't tell if this is an endorsem*nt or critcism.

Xervous

2024-07-22, 06:55 AM

Can't say I'm familiar with PF2e at all, so I can't tell if this is an endorsem*nt or critcism.

The spells always do something, but rarely feel worthwhile. In PF2e part of that stems from it being implemented as a degree of success system. If we just got effects on a failure in D&Done the spells would still be paying for this improvement, likely reduced maximum potential, effectively normalizing the spells contribution. I dont trust them to pick a good point to normalize around.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-22, 07:20 AM

They can't write "magic items only appear sporadically" and then wrap you in them in every single adventure they print.

I did this summary a while back for a few of the printed modules and what you get out of them:-

Potential:
5 Potion of Healing
2 1st level scrolls

Potential:
3 Potion of Healing

For what it's worth, Sunless Citadel and Forge of Fury are 5E updates to classic modules, so there might be some carryover there. My sense is that modules original to 5E from earlier in 5E's lifespan will have fewer magic items than modules from later in the line's lifespan.

Edit though: It also wouldn't be the first time 5E designers said one thing and did exactly the opposite.

JellyPooga

2024-07-22, 07:43 AM

Is part of the criticism, then, stemming from an entitled sense of "losing out" compared to previous iterations ("My Fireball isn't as good as it used to be, so I'm throwing my toys"), or is it as you say a lack of trust, more than it is a criticism of the notion or idea itself? Were the power fantasy maintained and trust earned whilst implementing it, what criticism might be levelled at it?

There is certainly an argument to be had that spellcasting potential or ceiling is in need of normalising compared to non-spellcasting options and part of what I'm suggesting here is intended to work toward that.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-22, 09:24 AM

Even in LotR, Gandalf is offscreen for his big wizarding.

I think Batman's strength in the JL is to be the tactician, and when he actually joins the fight himself, all reason goes flying out the window, because no he can't actually meaningfully compete with Darkseid, Anti-Monitor, Sinestro, Doomsday, etc.
He has a role to play, but fans would rather see him do things he can't actually do, and authors concede.
The way I see something like Darkseid/Batman is that Batman is not soloing Darkseid, and the reason Batman can have an impact is precisely because Darkseid has his hands full with the likes of Superman and Wonder Woman.

But honestly... no one really has the power of Darkseid or Anti-Monitor in the game. So it's not really apples to apples. And if someone like Darkseid were in the game, his Omega Beams would be reduced to an attack roll, or a dexterity saving throw, and you'd have a chance of avoiding it no matter who you are.

What is it that is straining credulity at high levels?

Xervous

2024-07-22, 09:31 AM

Ill start this off with agreement that its good design when done right, and that it would yield a considerable improvement in trust.

A spell with an effect of magnitude X on failed save and nothing on success has a value of %X where % is the save failure rate. The reworked version has Y on failed and Z on success, yielding %Y + (1-%)Z. The reworked version is far less swingy in relevance, better than the old one for punching up, worse for punching down. For granular effects like disintegrate or cantrips its easy to massage the numbers, but you cant shave unique effects or even some conditions so cleanly. Some effects which are currently finely balanced will either be tipped too far if just given an effect on success, but reducing the failure effect will cripple the spell. The allowable options for effect on failure will need to be constrained to keep legendary resistances relevant, or youre just adding more spells that set legendary creatures up for butchering.

The main complaint for whatever balance point is picked in the ideal case will either be the loss of punching down power or the gain of punching up. But its not going to be trivial to pick and tune for some of the design points.

Psyren

2024-07-22, 09:43 AM

Age has yet to diminish it's relevancy, however.

People who can't get over wanting D&D to be something it's not just won't take a hint, yeah.

The normals cannot do cool things while they are around. They require the separation in order to do cool things.

Or you can actually design your encounter such that both are challenged at the same time. Gandalf wasn't on his phone playing sudoku while Merry was fighting the Witch-King, he was dealing with Denethor and his palantir. Even a solar can't be in two places at once.

It's a Spider-Man movie - everyone other than Spider-Man is an NPC. The problem is that Hawkeye is an NPC in a Thor movie just as much as Captain Stacy is an NPC in a Spider-Man movie.

Nah. Hawkeye is a superhero, Captain Stacey is just some guy. Bad analogy.

Yes, it does, and you know better, because you know what is printed in XGE:

1) XGtE is a core book? Since when?

2) "Necessary" and "expected/recommended" are two different things. You can physically play the game without magic items, but that doesn't mean combat won't be tedious, swingy, or un-fun.

Sorinth

2024-07-22, 09:48 AM

This thread has got me thinking...are D&D spells getting it backwards?

The problem with this is that some spells have part (c) and that some don't. This makes balance almost impossible, especially when you start having "partial effects".

Thoughts?

If your preference is for spells to always do something, then you can always stick to using those type of spells and not take the spells that do nothing on a successful save. D&D is going to want to cater to every style which means it's going to have tons of options and then it's your tables responsibility to only use the options that fit into your preferred style.

As to the point that spellcasters shouldn't be the damage dealers, I do tend to agree with that in the case of the generic wizard but the other classes and subclasses not so much. Warlock for instance should be a damage dealer, if not Sorcerer as a whole then definitely certain subclasses should be damage dealers. Even with Wizard an Evoker or War Mage should be able to hand out good damage, whereas an Illusionist or Enchanter probably shouldn't. I wouldn't want to see the return of banned spell schools, but less spell slots and more spell like abilities and/or boosts to spell groups in the subclasses would probably be a good starting point.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-22, 10:11 AM

It's interesting you bring up banned spell schools -- that's something I was thinking about the other day. I would like to see them come back. But I also am nostalgic for the curse of the magi, and like having variable point buys for different classes, so I accept that there's something deeply wrong with me.

Amnestic

2024-07-22, 11:24 AM

I don't think banned schools are a bad thing innately, it's just that 5e's spell list is a bit lopsided. A wizard banning Necromancy loses...basically nothing. A few spells here and there, but most of the Necromancy spells that people care about aren't on the wizard list. It's not unfixable by any stretch, just that it'd require a bit more effort than a quick implement.

Pex

2024-07-22, 11:42 AM

I think the intent in the message was in 5E PCs didn't need +# magic items to keep up with the game math. 3E was full of those in weapon pluses, resistance bonuses to saving throws, and enhancement bonuses to ability scores. Some DMs took it to mean PCs don't need any magic items of any kind at all and were thrilled to never give them any. They were and are wrong, but sadly those DMs exist. They were more prevalent and vocal about in the early 5E years on the Forum. Nowadays there isn't much peep about it. Everyone agrees and accepts no player can expect to have any specific magic item as a guaranteed thing, but that's not the same thing as PCs never get any magic items at all ever.

Psyren

2024-07-22, 11:57 AM

We're definitely in agreement again, but how do they design around that? We don't want to go back to the Big Six WBL Christmas Tree, but we don't want DMs to think magic item-less games are every bit as fun and efficient as games that have them. They provide guidance by tier in the DMG that folks like Schwann pretend doesn't exist. There's no win.

Pex

2024-07-22, 11:59 AM

I wouldn't want to see the return of banned spell schools, but less spell slots and more spell like abilities and/or boosts to spell groups in the subclasses would probably be a good starting point.

That's what 5E already did. If they did any more spellcasters wouldn't have any spells to cast might as well just ban spellcasters already. If you think spellcasters are too powerful blame the spells not the spell slots. I still might disagree on what you think is too powerful for a spell to do, but then that's a matter of personal taste. Here you're complaining spellcasters exist. No, not verbatim, but that is what it comes to. I object to that.

Ironically enough I wouldn't mind Opposition Schools returning. It's a way to limit wizard power without punishing the player for playing one. He doesn't need the potential ability to cast every spell in existence. You can even have School Specific spells where only PCs of that subclass can cast the spell. Let Fireball be an Evoker only spell if you want, leaving it as is. It would be interesting to see wizard players cast other 3rd level spells for a change. Despite the joke Fireball is not the answer to everything.

stoutstien

2024-07-22, 12:17 PM

Well the could make sure that the rarity/value system has some sort of pattern and give a rough outline on how certain types of items (blanket bonuses to attack,AC, save DC, and so on) effect the way the game plays and feels.

The magic item system is a decent idea with no guidance.

Sorinth

2024-07-22, 12:22 PM

Banned schools just suck, not only do you need balanced spell schools which will basically never happen, there's no logic behind which schools get banned beyond balance which only serves to limit creativity of character themes.

You'd be better off doing something like the automatic spells you get from level up being limited in school selection. It would be a bit of a soft ban but at least it's something you can work with and can generate RP/quests as you go searching for the spells you want.

I haven't looked at the 5.5 content so I can't comment on what changes they made but no I very much disagree that my comments are effectively wanting to ban spellcasters. Does a feature like Hypnotic Gaze existing instead of it being a spell make an Enchanter Wizard not a real spellcaster because it should have been a spell instead of a feature?

Not only does Warlock prove that you can be a spell caster without a lot of spell slots you can even make it so it's effectively the same so long as you are sticking to the theme of the subclass you chose. If instead of 4 level 1 spell slots it maxed out at 3 level 1 spell slots and each subclass got a free casting of a relevant spell (Magic Missile for Evoker, Charm Person for Enchanter, Shield for Abjurer, etc...) is that really a ban on spellcasters? Because I see it as promoting the theme of the subclass that doesn't change anything in regards to being a spellcaster.

Segev

2024-07-22, 01:24 PM

The difference between Hawkeye and Thor is about thirteen levels.

GeneralVryth

2024-07-22, 02:24 PM

The most common complaint about Warlocks is their lack of spell slots. They only work because they have a lot more features added on, and that depends on how you define work.

And no 1 level 1 spell slot isn't banning casters, but it won't make much difference either. The problem is when you try and expand it. Also, not every Wizard sub-class is a school subclass. In fact some of us dislike the focus on school subclasses and think the 8 school subclasses should be combined into 1 or 2 subclasses resembling the Wild Heart Barbarian.

ZRN

2024-07-22, 02:30 PM

I think it's worth considering what a high-level "badass normal" character would look like in a D&D-esque setting.

I always think of this scene from Troy : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE-Dds-yH0M

Yes, Achilles is a demigod in the Iliad, but in this film/scene he's just a guy who knows where to stab to end a fight quickly; the guy he's fighting is bigger and stronger but that doesn't matter when he's bleeding out.

That works fine for high-level D&D: you're fighting huge monsters, but your level 20 fighter is so incredibly well-trained he knows exactly where to direct his entirely mortal energy and force to put down threats. Is he "as powerful as" the guy who can summon demons and teleport himself a thousand miles in six seconds? Only in the sense that if you put him in front of some kind of orc army or demonic monstrosity or evil demigod, he's going to be just as effective at ending that threat as the mage, because he knows exactly where, when, and how to strike.

Theodoxus

2024-07-22, 02:30 PM

The difference between Hawkeye and Thor is about thirteen levels.

And completely different species. It's like if humans were competing with elves, and elves are literally immortal, nearly indestructible, have magic, don't need to breathe in space (or at least hold their breath for a VERY long time), yet can still get drunk and fat on earth foods.

Re: spell like abilities, I'm not sure turning Wizards into glorified Warlocks is really the right answer. I mean, they already get mastery at top levels, do they need more toys, even if the expense is spell knowledge or spell slot breadth? Then again, it would play up into my desire to see fewer arcane casters... make Wizards NPCs again!

Specialized Sorcerers and Big Toy Warlocks are the only "full" casting arcanists we need. Artificer, EK/AT round out the zoo. Let players have their jaws drop when the NPC Wizard starts going full Gandalf on them. Asking 'where can I learn that kind of magic' and have Gandalf #5 reply 'when 800 years old you are, not as pretty will you be'.

Wizardry should be a boon, not a class. It's boring as hell anyway. A true class like Sorcerer or Warlock would be better adding Wizardry on top - as an option, and a rare one at that - than the other way around.

I'd be right there with you, if there was autoscaling present, or, at the very least, people did % based damage instead of real numbers. Achilles the demigod deals 25% of a monsters hit points per hit, killing anything in a round (and two on Sundays Action Surge. Sawmise the Miter does 8% on a hit, being only 3rd level. Multiply the % dealt by the difference in CR (creature) and level (PC). A level 1 character deals 5% (base) + 1% per level to a CR = level creature. So, facing a CR 1/2 creature, the 6% damage becomes 12%. Magic items add +1% to the calculation per +1 or +1d6 damage, stacking. All monsters have 100 HP.

Super easy for a computer, slightly less easy for a maths nerd. Probably unfun for anyone not wanting to do calculations on the fly (though really, you know your player's levels, you know the CR of the creatures - setting up everything on the back end is super easy. (Hint - you don't even need to have the players on board. They can still be rolling their little d6s and d8s and telling you damage - you know how much they're actually doing.)

Spell damage would follow a similar trend, dealing 10% per spell level per hit. It does mean fireball is never going to be a killer spell, but the ultimate in kill stealing. Though 3 3rd level ones would do the heavy lifting. But if we're wanting to drop the premise that Wizards are primary damage dealers - this would do it. And then just grant evokers x2 the damage of their spells. Two fireballs will clear out a room in that case... Bosses would probably need some built in resistances.

Magic armor would reduce the % same as magic weapons (this is where being a DM would kind of suck - if you can get the players to agree to have 100 HP, no problem... converting 8% damage for 33 HP, not as much fun.

schm0

2024-07-22, 03:29 PM

I think it's worth considering what a high-level "badass normal" character would look like in a D&D-esque setting.

I always refer myself to this scene when I think of D&D and what martials should be capable of (Gandalf's magic excluded, the dwarves are doing all the work here):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2GrzD59gzY

It's epic and fun and makes great use of movement, terrain and teamwork.

EDIT: testing out a better link with slightly less of the battle

Sorinth

2024-07-22, 03:43 PM

The most common complaint about Warlocks is their lack of spell slots. They only work because they have a lot more features added on, and that depends on how you define work.

Giving them features is exactly the point, more class/subclass features is what provides a strong theme, but if your adding a bunch of powerful new features then your going to have to take power from somewhere and that somewhere is bound to be direct spell casting. It could mean less spell slots, it could mean less spells prepared or somewhat predetermined preparation, it could be limiting what spells can be learnt (Not through banned schools). Right now at least for wizards too much of the class power is put into spells, if you push some of that power into class/subclass features then you'll get wizards who fit their theme better. Doing that doesn't even have to mean less spellcasting as with the example already provided it could be the same amount of spellcasting, with Warlock features like Mask of Many Faces it could result in even more spellcasting then otherwise possible, or like the Expert Divination feature it could just strongly incentive thematic spells.

The example was to prove that less spell slots doesn't have to mean being less of a spellcaster. And I'd add you complaint about schools is irrelevant, as I said in the post you quoted, it would be a free RELEVANT spell, whether the subclass is specialized in a specific school or not you can come up with a relevant and thematic spell to use.

Pex

2024-07-22, 03:58 PM

Rafaelfras

2024-07-22, 04:06 PM

Having features is nice, but that does not make one a spellcaster. It is all about casting spells. A warlock is its own unique thing. It is a spellcaster on the technically so are paladins and rangers, but that is not the intent when someone wants to play a spellcaster. You want to add on more features and have spellcasters cast less spells. Yes, that is wanting to get rid of spellcasters because you don't want them to be casting spells.
This. If I want to play a warlock I will do just that.
I have no interest in my wizard, the class I enjoy most in over 20 years of D&D, to become a warlock, or worse becoming a NPC.
It was here before the others and is not going anywhere thank you very much

GeneralVryth

2024-07-22, 04:30 PM

What's the point though? Why make Wizards into a Warlock-esque class when you have one called the Warlock? It can't be for balance reasons, as it is in 5e24 Wizards may very well be the weakest of the full arcane casters. They certainly have the weakest set of non-subclass features. You could arguably just give them another feature or 2 without issue (ironically you can't give them unique spells because Bards get access to the Wizard spell list and things like Magic Initiate).

If the reason is "theme", the primary Wizard theme has always been what I would call strategic flexibility (separate from Build and Tactical flexibility, the former Warlocks are great at, and the latter being most notable amongst Druids and Sorcerers for full casters). What you're suggesting is weakening their strategic flexibility in exchange for what? If the features don't have choices it's not build flexibility. If they don't let you change things in the moment in combat, it's not tactical flexibility. The third option is power, unless the goal is a nerf, in which case see above about the other 3 arcane full casters.

Skrum

2024-07-22, 04:51 PM

This. If I want to play a warlock I will do just that.
I have no interest in my wizard, the class I enjoy most in over 20 years of D&D, to become a warlock, or worse becoming a NPC.
It was here before the others and is not going anywhere thank you very much

Yeah but it's kind of hard to argue that wizard isn't one of the best classes, and enjoys many advantages over most other classes. What would you propose, if you were so compelled to reign them in?

Right now it kinda sounds like you're saying "being broken is a core part of wizard identity."

Darth Credence

2024-07-22, 04:55 PM

It can't be for balance reasons, as it is in 5e24 Wizards may very well be the weakest of the full arcane casters. They certainly have the weakest set of non-subclass features. You could arguably just give them another feature or 2 without issue (ironically you can't give them unique spells because Bards get access to the Wizard spell list and things like Magic Initiate).

Yeah but it's kind of hard to argue that wizard isn't one of the best classes, and enjoys many advantages over most other classes.

This is an interesting pair of contrasting takes that is going to be worth revisiting when the full books are available.

Sorinth

2024-07-22, 05:04 PM

I very much disagree that Warlocks aren't spellcasters, and I would point out the features mentioned can be casting spells. A warlock with Misty Visions can quite easily end up casting more total spells per day then a wizard. Moreover features like Hypnotic Gaze and Instinctive Charm from the Enchanter subclass could just as easily have been modelled as spells, having them as spell-like abilities doesn't make one less of a spellcaster.

As another example, you could redo how ritual casting works and make it so wizards can ritually cast every spell in their spellbook. If that gets balanced by fewer spell slots it doesn't make them less of a spellcaster if anything they are probably casting more spells then before.

Well I wouldn't go anywhere close to Warlock # of spell slots, but there's a huge range between that and the full complement of spell slots. But yes the reason is theme, and although I don't really agree that every wizard's theme is strategic flexibility the bottom line is that the approach taken to solve a problem (ie the Strategic Flexibility) should still look different for an Illusionist compared to an Enchanter compared to a War Mage, etc... When 90% of your spell list is exactly the same no matter what subclass you choose because everything is put into the spells rather then having cool features it's if not a problem it's at least a missed opportunity. By all means have a Generalist subclass whose theme is flexibility but if I choose to focus on being an Enchanter then I don't want to feel like I'm gimping myself by purposely taking weaker spells that are on brand and I don't want to look like every other wizard out there with a nearly identical spell book. And it's a whole lot easier to do that by making class/subclass features then in balancing the 300+ spells in existence.

schm0

2024-07-22, 05:48 PM

Yeah but it's kind of hard to argue that wizard isn't one of the best classes, and enjoys many advantages over most other classes.

I'll be honest as a forever DM I've waited a long time to play a wizard, and I'm honestly not that impressed. Part of me feels like I would be better off playing a druid, sorcerer or warlock. As far as flexibility goes, I have so many spells learned that I always feel like I'm missing out on what I don't have prepared. My rituals are really situational. I'm the weakest party member defensively out of the party despite being an abjuration wizard. My abjuration features are burned through pretty quickly (usually only one or two hits) and getting back hit points into my arcane ward is pretty much a joke, and when I do it's just for a measly handful. Avoiding hits burns through spell slots pretty quick, too.

I dunno, I felt I was much more powerful when I was playing a cleric or druid than I do as a wizard.

Psyren

2024-07-22, 05:52 PM

The difference between Hawkeye and Thor is about thirteen levels.

This is why I like to avoid gods (in whatever fictional context /power level that term is used) for these comparisons and focus on comparing street-level or mostly-street-level heroes to predominantly human magic-users like a Doctor Strange or a Zatanna. It avoids all the messiness of trying to figure out how much a character like Thor or Achilles' capabilities come from training and how much come from stuff that wouldn't be represented by character class in D&D like divinity or species.

I always refer myself to this scene when I think of D&D and what martials should be capable of (Gandalf's magic excluded, the dwarves are doing all the work here):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2GrzD59gzY

It's epic and fun and makes great use of movement, terrain and teamwork.

EDIT: testing out a better link with slightly less of the battle

Watching Gandalf go that entire sequence casting only a single spell (loosening the boulder) physically pained me to watch :smallsigh:

As for the martials/dwarves... sure I guess? They didn't do anything particularly impressive. They cut some ropes, swung a pole, carried a ladder, caused some arrows to miss... stuff D&D combat already abstracts, or that you could pull off with improvised ability checks for the most part. Even riding down the ravine on the collapsing scaffolding and landing relatively unscathed / the big goblin landing on them, just means they have high HP imo - which, hey, dwarves.

I really think the whole "Bards get the Wizard list now, Real Ultimate Power!!!" thing is vastly overblown. I remember prior editions when Sorcerers had the entire Wizard list to choose from too, on top of having several solid sorcerer-only spells from places like Dragon Magic (Wings of Cover anyone?), and they still couldn't compete with wizards; so much of that list draws its power from having or being able to fish up the right answer for a given problem, which is something that a spells known class is just never going to be able to do all that well - every spell your bard learns prepares is something they're going to be stuck with for that entire level, which can be entire weeks in real time, and which prevents them from learning something else from their list or one of the other two. 2024 Bards are going to be more powerful than they were in 2014 certainly, but that power is going to be a mile wide and an inch deep - more potential than actual at the end of the day.

With that said. Bards grabbing Wish is going to be a substantial boost. (Oh right, it won't, they got it before...) In fact, it looks like Druids are the only full caster that won't have regular access to it now.

Skrum

2024-07-22, 05:58 PM

This is an interesting pair of contrasting takes that is going to be worth revisiting when the full books are available.

"Slightly worse than the best classes in the game" is a pretty contextual point. I also refuse to agree that wizard is worse than bard. That might be my most heretical take about 5e; bard is weaksauce. Their spell list is by far the worst of the full casters, and they (almost) make up for it with class features. Wizards have the best spell list.

I don't disagree with Schm0 though that cleric and druid are more "naturally" powerful. They have a more complete kit that lets them kinda just show up and be super impressive. Wizard is more build-dependent.

Slipjig

2024-07-22, 06:02 PM

I think it's worth considering what a high-level "badass normal" character would look like in a D&D-esque setting.

That's always tough, since the vast majority of fantasy fiction (books or movies) takes place in T1 or T2. The Classical Greek heroes (including the demigods) or the Aesir never show any abilities that can't be produced by PCs by the end of T2.

Psyren

2024-07-22, 06:02 PM

Their spell list is by far the worst of the full casters, and they (almost) make up for it with class features. Wizards have the best spell list.

In his defense he was talking about the 2024 Bard, which will have access to the Wizard list from level 10 onward. But for the reasons I mentioned, that's not as OP as it might initially sound.

Theodoxus

2024-07-22, 06:02 PM

With that said. Bards grabbing Wish is going to be a substantial boost. In fact, it looks like Druids are the only full caster that won't have access to it!

I guess we now know the answer to 'what can a martial get that competes with Wish'? Wildshape!

Psyren

2024-07-22, 06:19 PM

I actually had a brain fart and forgot that 2014 Bards got Wish too :smallredface:

I guess we now know the answer to 'what can a martial get that competes with Wish'? Wildshape!

Druids are martials? News to me :smalltongue:

(And while they don't have Wish, they do have Shapechange, so I wouldn't feel too sorry for them.)

Rafaelfras

2024-07-22, 06:36 PM

Yeah but it's kind of hard to argue that wizard isn't one of the best classes, and enjoys many advantages over most other classes. What would you propose, if you were so compelled to reign them in?

Right now it kinda sounds like you're saying "being broken is a core part of wizard identity."

I reject the notion that wizard is broken, as I said earlier in this thread that I think 5e is balanced. Not "everyone is equal" but they are close enough that encounters per day plays a greater role than class disparities.
I would propose what it seems it's coming for 2024: bring up the classes that are lacking and leave the wizard as it is.
The weapon masteries for example tap in my argument that weapon users will bring more out of weapons, going forward this will be a reality even without magic itens.

All martials got now several abilities that impose saving throws on enemies, got A TON of utility and out of combat abilities, and straight buffs all around. The fix that many martial players have been asking for all these years are here, and for people who didn't had problems with martials at all it will be new toys that they can use to make their experience even better. While I don't have to worry of my favorite class becoming something that is unpleasant to play with, or vastly different or weaker than it is now.

I dunno, I felt I was much more powerful when I was playing a cleric or druid than I do as a wizard.

Abjurer got way bigger changes compared to diviner or evoker, so I think it was on the weaker side of the isle.
With evoker I got to feel very useful and powerful specially because I could fireball without worries, unfortunately potent cantrip was a dead feature, and despite we fixed it the same way wizard2024 did we often forgot about it and it was like not having a 6 level subclasses ability. Then level 10 came and my magic missile became nuclear (and it was a nice bonus to the other spells too) so the subclass really kicked in after that. At 14 with overchanel it is in full power wise and flavor wise (using it more than once is very dramatic). All in all my experience with the subclass was really positive.

GeneralVryth

2024-07-22, 06:39 PM

In his defense he was talking about the 2024 Bard, which will have access to the Wizard list from level 10 onward. But for the reasons I mentioned, that's not as OP as it might initially sound.

I am also adding in Weapon/Armor profs, expertise/more skills/jack of all trades, and Bardic Inspiration versus a couple more spells prepared and the ability to change 1 per SR.

I am almost certain Bard will be more effective than Wizards levels 1 through 4. 5 to 10 will be interesting. 11+ if Bards were behind they will slowly catch back up and probably pass again in the T4+ range.

I also building in how much easier it is to multi-class Bards/Sorcs/Warloocks/Paladins.

warty goblin

2024-07-22, 06:56 PM

Watching Gandalf go that entire sequence casting only a single spell (loosening the boulder) physically pained me to watch :smallsigh:

Magic is, without a lot of effort, boring as mud to watch in a movie. Harry Potter solves this problem by choreographing magic combat as a sword fight, or going full on transformation chaos at the end of Order of the Phoenix, but just waving and shooting sparkly CGI is really, really dull.

And here we have the key problem IMO, D&D abstracts so much of physical combat it by design becomes boring. The fantasy of a fighter etc is extremely compelling, as I've said elsewhere if you ask most people not steeped in RPGs to come up with a fantasy hero, that person is very likely to be good with a sword because sword combat is awesome and viscerally appealing, but because the RPG paradigm contains very few dynamic or reactive elements for physical combat, it's by default kinda dull to actually play. Spellcasting is more interesting, because spellcasting is hardly abstracted at all. If the wizard was designed like the fighter you'd get 1 - 4 spell attacks, and the choice of a wand that did 1d8 damage or a staff that did 1d12. And about four times a day you could set somebody on fire. If a fighter was designed like a wizard they'd have half a hundred special moves targeting different (body part specific!) defenses and every new book would come out with a bunch more stuff for, like, slicing somebody's Achilles Tendon or throwing sand in their eyes or grabbing their sword or whatever.

Psyren

2024-07-22, 07:08 PM

Even if I agreed with that (and for the record I don't - see movies like Push, Doctor Strange 1 & 2, Howl's Moving Castle etc), I wasn't saying the entire movie should consist of Gandalf flinging CGI around, but for that specific action sequence having the guy in robes running face-first into hordes of mooks doing nothing but swinging his sword like he's Conan is the opposite extreme. I get it, Glamdring was in its element and all, but Ian Mckellen wasn't exactly spry even then, so his sword moves just weren't that interesting to watch.

I don't think improvised checks are boring, quite the opposite. That's what the system should be doing. The problem is that the system can already do those, so the folks who want change aren't exactly making a case by pointing them out.

"I wish the fighter could swing a pole and knock 5 goblins off the catwalk."
"...Uh, can't you? Roll Athletics?"

I'm almost certain you'll be wrong, but we'll see.

I also building in how much easier it is to multi-class Bards/Sorcs/Warloocks/Paladins.

Multiclassing gets you nice toys, but ultimately the main thing it does in practice is delay spellcasting progression. In terms of raw power, Wizard 1-20 will rule the roost like it does today.

The main power dip that casters will lose from 2014 is Fighter 2, because Action Surge doesn't work on spells anymore.

Schwann145

2024-07-22, 07:09 PM

1) XGtE is a core book? Since when?

My argument in this regard, from the beginning, has been, "the Devs have said X about how the game is designed." I quoted their words that supports my argument. I'll quote it again, even:

"Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items[...]"
~5e Devs

You are the only one who insists that it must come from (your idea of) a "core book" in order for it to count, apparently? Tables in the DMG count, but Dev statements in XGE don't count? How absolutely absurd.
(And, for what it's worth, I consider the PH, DMG, MM, XGE, TCE, and MToF to be the "core" books. Volo's Guide to Monsters, Mythic Odysseys of Theros, Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, etc, would be examples of non-core books.)

They provide guidance by tier in the DMG that folks like Schwann pretend doesn't exist. There's no win.
When you point a finger, there are three more pointing back at you. I'm not ignoring the DMG; the game definitely has guidelines for wealth distribution, including magic items. But the game is built on the assumption that such items are not necessary, which makes them optional, not expected. You, however, are absolutely pretending the sidebar in XGE doesn't exist to make your point. The difference between what the DMG says and what XGE says is that the DMG is providing examples and suggestions while XGE is a direct statement of intent.

The difference between Hawkeye and Thor is about thirteen levels.
The difference between Hawkeye and Thor is the former is a T2 character, while the latter is unplayable by PCs for balance reasons.

warty goblin

2024-07-22, 08:43 PM

I found Dr Strange pretty boring in the action department. The time shenanigans at the end were fun, but that's not exactly a fight scene. Strange 2 had more boring action, salvaged somewhat by Raimi's very dynamic camera and the marginally interesting slasher sequence in the middle. But every time dudes and/or ladies were slinging spells at each other? Total snoozefest for me, even by MCU standards, and the MCU has in my book managed a grand total of two (2) engaging fight scenes ever.

Anyway, Gandalf doesn't go slinging spells because Middle Earth isn't a spell slinging place. Combat is pretty much hitting each other with swords, or singing magic if you are next level badass. Yes I know Gandalf does some sort of lightning flash thing a couple times in the Hobbit, but the Hobbit the book is only sort of accidentally in Middle Earth, but the Hobbit movies are very much in movie Middle Earth.

Improvised checks are great. Would it be reasonable to replace all the spells with like 5 or 6 magic skills, and handle anything that isn't damage by improvised checks?

"I wish the fighter could swing a pole and knock 5 goblins off the catwalk."
"...Uh, can't you? Roll Athletics?"

"I wish I could set five goblins on fire." "Um, you can? Roll fire magic?"

I'm not exactly joking here. I really like a looser, improvised sort of system. It's just a little incoherent for one chunk of characters to get like 25% of the rulebook outlining special features, and the others get a couple paragraphs and "eh, wing it." Maybe pick a lane?

Or not. Borderline incoherence isn't a terrible thing. Sometimes it's an extremely pragmatic and functional thing.

Skrum

2024-07-22, 08:51 PM

"I wish the fighter could swing a pole and knock 5 goblins off the catwalk."
"...Uh, can't you? Roll Athletics?"

That's because I want martials to have abilities that are as iron-clad as spells are. Thunderwave to hit perfectly lined up goblins and potentially knock them off the cliff? That's rock solid in the text of the spell. Indisputable.

Improvising an action that goes against the RAW text of shoving? There's 0.00% chance this would fly at the table I play at. I will admit the table I play at shades on the literal/RAW side, but even so - the rules of a shove are right there, in plain English. Shoving 5 targets at once, that's like an action surge+. It beggars belief that a DM would ever allow that, outside of "ok we're garbage timing the rest of this combat that's effectively over, narrate what your character does to contribute to victory."

I'd also like to point out that these are *goblins,* the most cannon fodder-y of foes. Even if a DM allowed someone to make a shove like that, I'm even more doubtful they'd allow this sort of "make up an action and succeed at a single skill check to immediately defeat some enemies or gain some large advantage" if the enemy was notable.

Witty Username

2024-07-22, 09:15 PM

I don't know the Hobbit cartoon killing of the goblin king still gives me chills.

Like WT ****.

Generally the reason this is, is because control effects are much more valuable than damage (at least damage usually provided by spells). Keeping the control effects but not damage makes the spell substantially more valuable.

Personally, if your thinking more eliminate damage from spells, my only concern is this is already my preference in the game that exists.
Damage spells are usually bad, or limited in scope. Control spells are a thing casters can bring that others cannot and tend to already be more powerful.

Psyren

2024-07-22, 09:38 PM

Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items

Right, they can face each other without items. Nothing in that quote about ease of play, efficiency/effectiveness, or equal fun to using items. A combat that takes 20 rounds because the monsters all have resistance and regeneration your players can't overcome is still technically facing each other, is it not?

And I find it absurd that XGtE counts for you the DMG doesn't.

I'm not ignoring the DMG;

You are, repeatedly. Items being unnecessary/optional and items being desirable/expected are two different things.

I won't argue your movie preferences as I'm perfectly content to disagree with them.

As for the Midde-Earth movies... uhh, there's way more overt magic in those than in the books. Saruman telekinetically making Gandalf breakdance against his will, the Caradhras chant-off, the Sauron Brawl - none of that is in the books.

Improvised checks are great. Would it be reasonable to replace all the spells with like 5 or 6 magic skills, and handle anything that isn't damage by improvised checks?

As a matter of fact yes, you could design the game that way and it would function. But D&D's audience has shown they're more than willing to pay for defined spells, so why wouldn't the devs continue to design them?

And the reason for that is simple - magic spells are a lot more difficult to envision in a balanced way, so outsourcing those effects to professional designers is much more desirable. Approximating mundane activities like cutting some rope or swinging on a chandelier is something I'm willing to bet more DMs feel confident about than trying to come up with magical effects on the fly.

Maybe pick a lane?

They clearly did; I take it you disapprove.

That's because I want martials to have abilities that are as iron-clad as spells are.

As the saying goes, wish in one hand...

The demand for rigidly defined martial actions is, I would be willing to bet, considerably lower than it is for new spells. Your best bet would be to find a third-party martial action/maneuver system (or crowdsource finding one) and signal boost it to such a degree that it becomes impossible for WotC to ignore.

Witty Username

2024-07-22, 09:49 PM

I think it would depend on how many still feel burned by 4e, how many people remember fondly the much better and more interesting in comparison Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, and now many new people would like more meat on their fighter types.

I think there is demand for a caster-light and crunchy-martial as options at least. And for simple options we can probably do better than 5e's champion fighter certainly.

Kane0

2024-07-23, 12:17 AM

Put some magic items in the PHB, and some in the DMG. Clearly point out that the ones in the PHB are the sorts of magic items that help more than harm the game's math and expectations, and the ones in the DMG are more niche and experimental.
So a sword that can change its damage type to fire damage? PHB
A +2 sword that stuns when it crits? DMG

Those PHB items might have a more player-facing method of acquisition too, where the DMG ones are more up to the DM to decide how (and if) they can be obtained.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-23, 01:30 AM

Of course you don't know for sure what the wants and demands of the player base is, and your "suggestion" is basically spend money on, or create an alternative rule set, and make it popular enough to make WotC go "hmm".

This is why, sometimes, you, (whether intentionally or non-intentionally), come across as an WotC apologist, Psyren, despite the careful consideration you obviously give to the game. (I'm not trying to start any beef, just offering feedback on how your posts strike me, {and other's I would wager}).

Crawford stated in the 2024 Fighter video that the design team considered adding Battle Master Maneuvers to the base chassis, but elected not to, to allow someone to make a simpler Fighter.

(Which is a little rich, given the Weapon Mastery system, is anything but simple to apply, and I am not at all sure that what it provides is going to really help that much...but time will give us the answer on that.)
I do think, there is some wisdom in that 'simple' approach, but with that said, the fact that the developers considered it, likely means, that enough feedback was given in Surveys that a sizable portion of responses stated a want for some more tactical options being built in.

We also have history, Book of Nine Swords was an interregnum step between the 3E PHB and 4e.
The work is already in the bones of 5e and 2024 D&D, just see Steel Wind Strike the spell, for example.

Given the obvious demand, and given the design ethos that is already in the DNA of current D&D itself, perhaps, just perhaps...the release schedule for 2024 should include a Tome of Battle option, if not tout suite after release of the core books, then pretty shortly there after.

Rangers and Paladins, in 2024, are sorta of the spiritual successors of the Tome of Battle classes, but the flavor is off, because they cast spells....unless there are Rakshasa...in which case both classes are kinda screwed.

Ignimortis

2024-07-23, 01:51 AM

Crawford stated in the 2024 Fighter video that the design team considered adding Battle Master Maneuvers to the base chassis, but elected not to, to allow someone to make a simpler Fighter.

Well worded. I have also noticed that tendency to direct people towards homebrew.

Also, weapon masteries really are more complex (as in, they will take up more time from players because they apply on each hit and you can employ multiple properties even per attack eventually) than maneuvers would be...except you only design them once and don't have to put out new ones afterwards, like you'd do with maneuvers (and like WotC consistently does with spells). And they're mandatory for everyone anyway, so the best you can do is choose a non-complex weapon with like, Graze, and forget about anything else.

Which I don't particularly like, personally. While I don't exactly love the road 5e has taken weapons, it's much better than the 2024 revision or the PF2 route, which both severely limit your weapon choices based on what you want them to do mechanically.

Schwann145

2024-07-23, 02:39 AM

If you don't like Comcast, just use a different ISP. Or make your own. I don't see the problem.

GeneralVryth

2024-07-23, 02:40 AM

I have seen it repeated in this thread multiple times about this need for for martials with more mechanical meat/long rest resources. I know the people asking for it are aware of this, but there are melee heavy, optionally armored, class paths with lots of long rest resources already in the game and in 5e24. With the right flavor they are unquestionably martial.

I am sure you can guess them...

Valor Bard
Swords Bard
War Cleric
(Many other Clerics)
Hexblade and Blade Pact Warlocks
Bladesingers

And that is all without getting in to multi-class approaches.

Why doesn't a flavor spin on any of the above work? Why does it have to be non-magical? The reason non-magical classes of whatever flavor with lots of long rest resources don't exist in the game is because it's hard to make them make sense in the world. There isn't a lot of non-verisimilitude breaking long rest resource options of a non-magical nature. On short notice the only ones that pop in to my head would be an ephemeral luck, or collections of devices that get expended (but that is borderline magical, see the artificer). Without a widely accepted solution to that (and the frustration with yet more classes using similar/complicated mechanics), you are going to have a hard time with your long rest martials.

Ignimortis

2024-07-23, 03:57 AM

I am sure you can guess them...

Valor Bard
Swords Bard
War Cleric
(Many other Clerics)
Hexblade and Blade Pact Warlocks
Bladesingers

And that is all without getting in to multi-class approaches.

The demand isn't for "long rest" martials specifically. It's for complex martials with many options available to them, preferably options that scale in narrative and mechanical impact instead of always staying at around level 3 (like BM maneuvers do). Yes, a BM Fighter can replicate some of Warblade (the entirely non-supernatural weaponmaster class) from ToB, and with 2024, will be able to replicate a bit more. But some things remain distinctly beyond their capability, like Wall of Blades (parry an incoming attack roll, including spells and large boulders), or the Mountain Hammer line (ignore resistances/hardness for one heavy strike), or even the humble Leaping Dragon Stance (+10 flat feet to any jump taken, including vertical ones, and all jumps are running jumps), because obviously only Monks can jump good.

I would rather not rehash this yet another time (I've do so plenty over the years), but about the only martial a 5e player can turn to and expect a somewhat distinct gameplay loop and unusual abilities that aren't just "take less damage" and "hit harder" is Monk. Which is kind of sad, even though post-Tasha a monk is an incredibly versatile class in terms of flavour, as long as you're fine with staying unarmored or losing most of movement-related features.

Tendril

2024-07-23, 07:41 AM

Yeah, as someone who wants more options for complex martials, I'd strongly prefer that to come with its own resource system separate from spells. Abilites that recharge per encounter, or ways to gain resources duiring combat, to give a unique flow in gameplay regardless of what the class actually does with their resources. So basically the 3.5 warblade or something like it.

Segev

2024-07-23, 09:11 AM

The difference between Hawkeye and Thor is the former is a T2 character, while the latter is unplayable by PCs for balance reasons.

Eh, No reason a T4 character can't replicate most if not all of what we see Thor do in the movies.

You are largely making my point for me, though I disagree that the character who scales up to higher tiers is out of bounds for playable PCs.

GeneralVryth

2024-07-23, 09:18 AM

The demand isn't for "long rest" martials specifically.

Some in this thread have advocated for that specifically.

I am in favor of non-casters with more levers/abilities as long as they make sense.

Theodoxus

2024-07-23, 09:34 AM

I'm so confused. We can't have complex martials because too many people want a simple Fighter base so they don't have to think... and now y'all are stating that nah, we do want a complex Fighter that can 'do magic-esque' things, provided its not called magic. And that it comes from the class, not items... like I was s-canned for talking about.

Whatever.

@Psyren, moon druids ARE martials. Sure, martials+, since they have spells, but they're not using them in combat (outside of maybe casting a buff at the start of combat). And sure, maybe in '24, they'll be fewer in number, since they're not going to be bags of extra HP anymore. But for the last 10 years, moonies and martials have existed in the exact same space.

Blatant Beast

2024-07-23, 09:36 AM

Why doesn't a flavor spin on any of the above work?

I've played 5e D&D with a DM that was disinclined to allow people to re-skin anything, as a matter of philosophy. Alas, sometimes, the flavor spin cycle is just not available.

In terms of using options like Sword Bards, War Clerics, and the like to represent a more extreme action tropes, one issue is the mechanics sort of get in the way. Having to keep Charisma at a certain level for a Sword Bard, in Point Buy, could mean another ability score that thematically the player would like to emphasize, might not be able to receive the amount of emphasis it could.

If the 2024 books add more options to the Paladin and Ranger spells lists, (especially options directly inspired by Tome of Battle), then I think those classes will probably be the best bet for those that want Tome of Battle-esque PCs.

I will say that I have mixed feelings about the 2024 change of Divine Smites from being magical, but not a spell, to just becoming a spell. The rat bastard DM in me, is interested to set a Helmed Horror that is immune to the 2024 Divine Smite spell against a Paladin.

Did the Devs consider spell immune creatures when classifying more features in 2024 as spells?

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-07-23, 09:45 AM

Whatever.

I think there's a place for both a Champion-esque martial class that has a relatively high floor and a relatively low ceiling based on always-on benefits and a more active, complex class with more resource-based variance and decision points. Designing those is tricky, of course, especially if you have to have fighters and monks and rogues and rangers and barbarians and paladins and avoid stepping on the design space of any of them.

Psyren

2024-07-23, 10:06 AM

I view myself as a pragmatist - and bluntly, I couldn't care less what label you or others want to use for me. Like the rest of you, I'm just sharing my opinion on the business practices I see as most viable for the company, as well as what I most want to see out of the game and the hobby (tempered by the realities of the market and their business model.) So long as we keep things civil, disagreement is a good thing... and largely inevitable anyway.

Crawford stated in the 2024 Fighter video that the design team considered adding Battle Master Maneuvers to the base chassis, but elected not to, to allow someone to make a simpler Fighter.

Weapon Masteries ARE simpler than BM maneuvers though. The former are resourceless, tied to specific weapons, and need to be prepared in advance, while the latter are chosen on the fly and powered by an entirely separate dice pool. And that's just the combat maneuvers, there are several that you need to remember to use in social or exploration situations too.

I do think, there is some wisdom in that 'simple' approach, but with that said, the fact that the developers considered it, likely means, that enough feedback was given in Surveys that a sizable portion of responses stated a want for some more tactical options being built in.

We also have history, Book of Nine Swords was an interregnum step between the 3E PHB and 4e.
The work is already in the bones of 5e and 2024 D&D, just see Steel Wind Strike the spell, for example.

Don't you find the the fact that they rejected the idea more telling than the fact that they considered it? I do. And since it never got out of their internal ideation phase (i.e. it had been rejected even before the first Fighter UA) I find it difficult to draw conclusions about how much demand there really was for it. They never actually surveyed Fighter-wide maneuvers in the UA process.

As for ToB - it's difficult to remember this in the 4e's substantial wake, but ToB was extremely controversial when it came out. They even published an article on their website (since nuked) basically saying "it's not anime, honest!" which shows just how loud those particular objections were.

No they're not, buffs exist. Rakshasa aren't immune to you putting Shield of Faith or Bless or Magic/Elemental Weapon or Haste on yourself. The same is true for golems etc.

Those PHB items might have a more player-facing method of acquisition too, where the DMG ones are more up to the DM to decide how (and if) they can be obtained.

They're actually doing this, thought the PHB will be geared more towards consumables (scrolls and potions.) But even scrolls will go along way towards helping martials, for example Enlarge scrolls will make grappling builds much more viable.

Darth Credence

2024-07-23, 10:43 AM

Spitballing here - how about "martial points" using the "spell points" variant rule, where there is a list of things that can be done with them?
Low end, they are simply the battle maneuvers already present. New, more powerful maneuvers could work as higher-level things that cost more points, perhaps culminating with something like "killing blow" where they can spend a big chunk of points on making an attack into a kill shot, or at least something like 100 hp of damage. I'd throw in called shots that do specific things as well, like leg wounds to reduce mobility, arm wounds to reduce attacks, or blinding shots (temporary and clearable at lower levels like sand in the eye, last until healed at higher levels like a slash across the eyes). Other types of things I might consider would be commands for others - "order volley" perhaps, allowing the group of followers they have with them shoot a volley of arrows at a given area, "shield wall" which has the followers form a line, stuff like that. It requires them to have followers, but that is something that some want, and by having it as a few options among many, it would lead some to fulfilling a "knight commander" fantasy, while others can fulfill their one-man army fantasy. (I'd also consider movement things, but a lot of those are monk abilities already.)

I don't have any players right now who have any desire for this style, so I've never considered how it would be done. But is this the kind of thing that would work for "martials need scalable powers without being magic" issue?

Tendril

2024-07-23, 11:19 AM

While I think you make a fair point here, I will mention that there's a decent bit of extra friction in the fact that adding maneuvers to the base fighter would represent a big change to an existing class. People who like the current fighter might not like the idea of the class changing, but that would be less of an issue when making a new class.

I always felt that was due to the naming as much as anything. I mean, "Sapphire Nightmare Blade", really? That said, anime is a lot more mainstream than it used to be, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a decent chunk of players who would see more anime-esque classes as a positive thing. Though a lot of people still wouldn't like it I'm sure.

Psyren

2024-07-23, 12:22 PM

It's not like I don't think there's any merit in the idea that a new martial class - let's call it "Warblade" - could have a baseline maneuver system and be better-received than trying to add such a thing to the core Fighter. But that still raises the question of whether WotC have to be the ones to make such a class in 5e. Even if they were willing and able to do so - something I've seen zero evidence of to date - there's a lot of other things I personally would rather they dedicate their resources to working on loooong before taking another swing at ToB.

I don't think it's that shonen tropes are seen as a bad thing (I love shonen and did even back then.) But that doesn't mean that's the aesthetic/gamefeel I want from D&D either; there are other RPGs that do that better. I've been poking at Fabula Ultima and it seems to have a lot of potential.

Theodoxus

2024-07-23, 12:29 PM

This is where, had the prospect not been axed, universal subclass templates would have shined. Imagine a Champion on a Paladin, Rogue, or Barbarian base class. Or Battlemaster. Heck, Champion Wizard? Firebolts critting on a 19? whaaaattt? Alas, not to be without some decent homebrew redesign. And my energies are currently elsewhere.

Hmm... I think Spheres of Might has something similar... or maybe not - I only read it once. But I do like this line of thinking. It's an interesting idea that deserves more rumination. A bit of a cross between Psi-warrior and Battlemaster, with a touch of Rune Knight. Only using points instead of dice. Now, is the idea to supplant or would this amalgam end up being the generalist to the other three being specialists?

Blatant Beast

2024-07-23, 12:46 PM

I view myself as a pragmatist - and bluntly, I couldn't care less what label you or others want to use for me.

It is not about labeling you, it is about understanding you. I've commented before, that I thought a comment of your directed at another poster was harsh. When you responded back explaining that was not your intention, and providing further details, you intent came through, and thus understanding was achieved.

I don't know what your intent was or is....all I know, is what I stated in the prior post.
I am assuming, you want those of us on this board to understand the opinion you are sharing.
I know I want to know what you are saying. Saying you give careful consideration to the game, is a compliment, after all.

Weapon Masteries ARE simpler than BM maneuvers though.
That is subject to debate, and we will see more, once the 2024 books are in play.
People do not tend to forget to use their Maneuvers, and the Maneuvers themselves are easy to apply, and tell you what class of weapons they do or do not work with.

Many of the Weapon Mastery features, seem like recycled bits of the Feats from Tasha's Feats, like Slasher. I know I as a player often forget about some of the riders from the Slasher feat in the thick of the action.

Don't you find the the fact that they rejected the idea more telling than the fact that they considered it?

It is not uncommon for people here, on discord, on reddit etc, etc to reference Tome of Battle in a positive light.

It is not the duty of the customer base to alert WotC to what they will spend money on....It is however the fiduciary duty of WotC to maximize shareholder returns...which means finding/creating products people want to buy.

I do not want to buy an product based around an Expanded Deck of Many Things. I would gladly purchase an alternate take, ToB style product on fighting classes.

People loved it on old Eric Noah ENworld, I seem to recall...and people still reference the design and the product in a positive light in discussions today. Optional products are the perfect place for innovative design. Some people do not like the 5e Eberron book, for example, others absolutely love the 5e treatment.

The D&D audience today, is also, vastly different from decades ago, in terms of what they are comfortable with. Anime style action is mainstream, to the point that live action emulates the anime...literally in some cases as the live action One Piece demonstrates.

Again, the point of optional products, is to cater to a specific taste, (and hopefully experiment with new design ideas), without making that specific taste mandatory to all, by placing it in the core rules books.

Silverblade1234

2024-07-23, 12:55 PM

You also don't have to look too hard for this. Some people just add maneuvers on to base fighter; very prominent homebrewers like LaserLlama have made this part of their revised fighters; this was arguably the central thesis and selling point of LevelUp; etc. So it's out there for anyone who wants it. At the same time, if you look at these things you can get a sense for what a maneuvers-based martial class might look like, and I personally find that it confirms that this approach is a bad fit for 5E's base martial classes.

Psyren

2024-07-23, 01:14 PM

Saying you give careful consideration to the game, is a compliment, after all.

And I appreciate that, but "WotC apologist" somewhat undermines your attempts at being complimentary :smalltongue: so I'd rather just not pay heed to or put stock in any opinions of me, good or bad. I care far more about what's being said than I do about who said it or even their reasons why - many of which boil down to irreconcilable differences in taste anyway.

That is subject to debate, and we will see more, once the 2024 books are in play.
People do not tend to forget to use their Maneuvers, and the Maneuvers themselves are easy to apply, and tell you what class of weapons they do or do not work with.

Well of course most people who use maneuvers today don't have a problem with them - the vast majority of those people are intentionally choosing to play Battlemasters, and thus actively seeking a more complex Fighter experience from the outset. The remainder who use them are gaining access via feats like Martial Adept or Superior Technique to layer them on top of something else. All of that is opt-in, and thus not the same degree of cognitive ask as making maneuvers baseline even for the folks who just want to be Champions would be.

As I stated before, I think there is some wisdom in the 'simple' approach for the core books...but as I was advocating for a ToB like supplemental product, to be released shortly after the PHB, as there is based off this message board alone at least some interest in seeing ToB style weapon using classes....your point does not seem germane.

Part of that fiduciary duty is allocating their limited design resources to the areas that they think would yield the most return. It's not that a ToB supplement would be an abject failure - though I'm not not saying that either - rather the question is whether that should be a higher priority than, say, developing and updating more subclasses, or campaign setting books, or more weapon masteries, or wild shape templates as a variant etc etc.

As above, determining whether that's the best optional product they could be working on now, or even 3-5 years from now, is the issue - not whether it could work outside core or not.

Tendril

2024-07-23, 01:56 PM

It's not that wizards have to do it, but I'd prefer it if they did. There's a lot of things that are simpler when playing an official class as opposed to homebrew.

Shonen tropes might not be seen as a bad thing today, but I think it was seen as a bad thing back in the day. That said, I agree it won't fit the tone for everyone, including me. Though I don't think a shonen-esque martial class would even be all that egregious when put next to things like World Tree barbarians and Four Elements monks.

Psyren

2024-07-23, 03:04 PM

If you don't like Comcast, just use a different ISP. Or make your own. I don't see the problem.

The barrier to entry for a TTRPG subsystem is substantially smaller than for a new/competing ISP, so the former is a reasonable recommendation/ask.

It's not that wizards have to do it, but I'd prefer it if they did. There's a lot of things that are simpler when playing an official class as opposed to homebrew.

I totally get that desire and where it's coming from.

I don't think the capabilities of an Elements Monk or World Tree Barbarian are an issue here, especially since we're talking about two of the more magical subclasses in two already magic-oriented martials, and even then their magic is largely limited to repositioning enemies and allies relatively short distances. At least, I'm not aware of any objection to martials like these two.

Tendril

2024-07-23, 03:38 PM

I'm not saying they're an issue per se, more that since we already have some pretty magical martials it wouldn't feel to out of place to add more martials with more fantastical capabilities. Though I do prefer more grounded takes on martials.

Psyren

2024-07-23, 03:45 PM

I'd say the devil is very much in the details on that one, and what exactly is meant by "more fantastical capabilities."

Pex

2024-07-23, 04:17 PM

If the wizard was designed like the fighter you'd get 1 - 4 spell attacks, and the choice of a wand that did 1d8 damage or a staff that did 1d12. And about four times a day you could set somebody on fire.

If a fighter was designed like a wizard they'd have half a hundred special moves targeting different (body part specific!) defenses and every new book would come out with a bunch more stuff for, like, slicing somebody's Achilles Tendon or throwing sand in their eyes or grabbing their sword or whatever.

Book of Nine Swords

:smallbiggrin:

Tendril

2024-07-23, 05:45 PM

I'd say the devil is very much in the details on that one, and what exactly is meant by "more fantastical capabilities."

I mean, I don't have any exact details in mind. But I think monk is a good bar for how fantastical you could make a martial class. In terms of mechanics there's a lot of possibilities that can work, but importantly abilities shouldn't feel like spells. So probably avoid things like long-lasting control effects, summons, teleportation etc.

GeneralVryth

2024-07-23, 06:20 PM

Psyren

2024-07-23, 07:01 PM

Yeah that's part of the issue - Monks and even Barbarians have a higher thematic floor to be supernatural than Fighters and Rogues. Crawford even mentioned that in one of the design videos, that the first two have a bit more innate magic to them.

GeoffWatson

2024-07-23, 08:52 PM

Some in this thread have advocated for that specifically.

I am in favor of non-casters with more levers/abilities as long as they make sense.

The problem is with "make sense". Many (supposedly smart and creative) people argue that is is impossible for any non-magic ability to "make sense" as usable less then at-will. Therefore every martial ability must be very weak "for balance".

Basically, any useful or powerful non-caster ability doesn't "make sense", to the caster fans at least.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-23, 09:15 PM

Monks also have a psuedo-magical/mystical vibe to them that let them push the boundaries a lot more than a Battlemaster who is ostensibly someone who is just exceptionally good at weapon-work and tactics.
I think if we look to weapons and a system like Injuries, we could work in a way that martials can have longer lasting effects as Tendril mentioned.

Take out an eye, chop of a limb, internal injury, etc.

You don't just open up the fight with a spear or dagger because you need to throw something before you close in; that spear or dagger can hobble someone and force a saving throw when they advance vs falling prone. Until they get magical healing, they have the Limp injury.

Hit with a bludgeoning weapon, maybe you have the option to break ribs. DC 10 con save whenever they attempt an action or lose the action and can't use reactions.

Slashing weapon? Hack off a hand, now that giant can't wield their greatclub, or maybe they can still wield it in one hand with disadvantage, who knows? Point is you're doing something lol.

This wouldn't be on every attack obviously, it would be a resource feature. But it's a way to have a lasting effect, cured by magical healing (regeneration would work probably as well), that makes sense for a warrior.

Not a cure-all, just an idea for one possibility.

Witty Username

2024-07-23, 09:44 PM

I remember, I was part of that controversy. And after playing with it once, it was really fun, and the brewing community on this very forum was fun too.

I think it could have done better, it sorta invalidated a chuck of classes, which is never good but the mechanics and class distinction (thing that 4e missed on) were solid.

Modern D&D I feel has more space to support a class like this without outright replacing the fighters and Barbarians of the world

GeneralVryth

2024-07-23, 10:01 PM

I think if we look to weapons and a system like Injuries, we could work in a way that martials can have longer lasting effects as Tendril mentioned.

Take out an eye, chop of a limb, internal injury, etc.

Hit with a bludgeoning weapon, maybe you have the option to break ribs. DC 10 con save whenever they attempt an action or lose the action and can't use reactions.

Slashing weapon? Hack off a hand, now that giant can't wield their greatclub, or maybe they can still wield it in one hand with disadvantage, who knows? Point is you're doing something lol.

Not a cure-all, just an idea for one possibility.

The first question in response to something like is, is going to be why can't someone do it every attack? What's the narrative reasoning here? Questions like that, combined with calls for weapon choice to be more meaningful is I am sure how we got weapon masteries. The suggestions basically are next level versions of weapon masteries.

Just spitballing, I would make it so you can only use one of these advanced masteries if you hit the target with an attack that exploits an opening. An opening can be created by some set of general circ*mstances (initial ideas, the target hasn't acted yet in combat, they took nearly max damage from a weapon attack in the last round [4 on a d4, 6 on a d6, 7 or 8 on a d8, 8, 9, 10 on a d10 10+ on a d12 or 2d6 or something], or maybe they suffered a near miss earlier in that turn, or another character took an action/used an ability to explicitly create an opening). And then you can create a resource around forcing an opening without prior circ*mstances X times per battle. The narrative justification of course becoming you can only create a surprise opening against someone seeing you fight a small number of times before they get wise.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-23, 10:10 PM

The first question in response to something like is, is going to be why can't someone do it every attack? What's the narrative reasoning here?
It represents an opening. Your enemy is not simply standing there allowing you to gouge eyes out and chop limbs off. But your skill is such that when an opportunity presents itself, you can maim even a powerful and skilled adversary.

Questions like that, combined with calls for weapon choice to be more meaningful is I am sure how we got weapon masteries. The suggestions basically are next level versions of weapon masteries.
For me it's different precisely because it's not simply something that happens every turn, and it's more intuitive and tropey and the benefits can be powerful enough to require a setup as you're about to suggest below.

I'm not one of those by the way, I want a more engaging combat system.

Theodoxus

2024-07-23, 11:25 PM

I like the idea of lingering injuries, and that HP damage heals overnight because the world is inherently magical - not because HP are 99% luck/plot armor. If players knew their characters would regenerate missing limbs and eyes with level appropriate magical healing, or probably the same number of nights of full rest - there might not be as much pushback.

OTOH, debilitating attacks against PCs will last longer simply by the nature that they're going to carry on to the next fight. Hacking an ogre's hands off is good for the fight, but the ogre will eventually end up dead anyway. For that reason, as a DM, I'd play a little closer in favor of the PCs and not have lingering injuries inflicted on them that are beyond the scope of the healing capacity in the party. Being blinded for a fight can prove tactically difficult, in a fun way. Being blinded for the day effectively removes the PC (and thus the player) from the majority of that session. Which isn't fun.

In the past, such attacks were made as called shots, and the DC to hit was increased. I think requiring something like a natural roll on the d20 (say, 16 or 17 minimum) for the called shot, and then also a damage threshold would allow for a resourceless injury attempt. Attacks that roll below the threshold still hit and do damage, so it's not a wasted attempt if you don't maim your opponent (where missing a called shot in prior editions were wasted).

GeneralVryth

2024-07-23, 11:49 PM

I can already hear people complaining it's too fiddly.

I'm not one of those by the way, I want a more engaging combat system.

Yeah. As a one off thing it probably is. If it's part of a larger subsystem, basically a condition called opening (or whatever), then you have a few standard ways of generating them, some class specific ways of generating them, and then use the advanced weapon masteries as a way of exploiting it. Though if such a system did exist, I can already imagine a desire for spells and other effects that can exploit them as well. In essence it's another flavor of advantage, but with a variable benefit and usually only usable 1 time per instance and it can go away without use (I imagine anyone with the opening condition would lose at the start of their next turn, without some special exception). A lot of things that give advantage to the "next attack" could also make sense as creating an opening. Heck, an optional basic use besides the advanced weapon masters would simply be getting advantage on an attack or giving disadvantage on a save.

I wouldn't setup the advanced weapon masteries as long term lingering, but rather short term lingering. Last until magical healing is applied, using hit die to heal during a SR, or being healed during a long rest. So narratively you are talking about cuts to the eyes, but not losing them outright, or a cut to a muscle or fractured bone, instead of losing a limb outright.

Tendril

2024-07-24, 12:19 AM

Yes. I suppose my point is that if a maneuver-based class needs some of that pseudo-magic to be an appropriate class then that would still be reasonable. Even if I personally would prefer something "low magic", I could see that stepping on the toes of the fighter too much thematically.

MoiMagnus

2024-07-24, 04:21 AM

IMO one of the big reasons why the ceiling for the fighter is so low is because of how magical weapons work currently. Your class cannot rely too much on the magical items you have, since they're part of the loot and different campaigns handle them differently.

Because when I think about a high level fighter in fantasy, I expect them to be "the best as using this specific magic weapon" (Excallibur, or simply a family heirloom), both in combat and out-of-combat (by relying on some secondary properties of said weapon).

KorvinStarmast

2024-07-24, 07:19 AM

Take out an eye, chop of a limb, internal injury, etc. The problems with this go back to the original game and the "hit location" scheme in the Blackmoor supplement.
First off the enemies get to use that on the PCs, and enemies often get a lot more attacks than PCs.
Secondly, we found that it slowed play down sufficiently that we abandoned it. There was certainly a bit of "wow, cool" factor when you chopped of an enemy's limb, but any number of monsters, like a giant octopus, lose a limb and keep on fighting.
Thirdly, adding to DM overhead, you also had to keep track of the "HP per body zone" to see where the limb (or head) was lost. While that isn't the only hit location scheme on would use (Runequest had a similar but different one when I played it, but it also had armor absorbing damage as did Tunnels and Trolls) it adds a lot of fiddly bits that 5e (IMO correctly) needed to clean out in terms of playability.
The complexity-playability tension never goes away in any game (see also various Avalon Hill war games of varying complexity and playability).

Until they get magical healing, they have the Limp injury. Not all monsters are anthropomorphic. If you restricted your games to humans versus humans a lot of this is easier to implement.

Not a cure-all, just an idea for one possibility. I see this as a solution looking for a problem. How much more overhead do you want to burden your DM with?

IMO one of the big reasons why the ceiling for the fighter is so low is because of how magical weapons work currently. This is a problem with how WotC has proceeded in departing from the core "swords and sorcery" aspect of the genre/game. (I will say that WBL might be argued to have formalized the "magic weapons on higher level fighters is a core class feature but it also had some downsides).

In the original game swords were the primary magic weapon (see the Monsters and Treasures tables in the LBB, and for that matter AD&D 1e DMG) and a good many of them would (if you used the tables and rolled) sentient and imbued with magical properties (fly, see invisible, etc). They weren't just +1 to hit (though that too was an option in the tables).
Beyond that, magical swords were often used as quest items: you wanted to find that magical sword had been heard of or sung about because it was {narrative thing} and it was also a boost in the power of the Fighting Man. Clerics and Magic Users were explicitly barred from using magic swords.

Currently, if you want to play "warrior chosen by a legendary sword, from which they unlock more and more abilities as they level up", the best way to simulate it is a Warlock Hexblade, not a Fighter, which is a shame for the Fighter. Not really. Hexblade is {censored}.
Try using sentient weapons. They are in the DMG. I am disappointed in WotC's modules / published adventures for not leaning into that particular tool that is available: sentient weapons as a treasure item. They have gated far too many weapons like that behind "legendary" or "artifact" rarity. (see the rarity and features of the White Plume Mountain quest rewards in this edition.
Thanks to bounded accuracy you don't really need a "+1 to hit" sword. As has been discussed on these forums with some frequency, if you take a sword with no "+ hit", but add sentience and "some other property" (weapon of warning is a fine example) you'll probably end up with a rare or uncommon rarity that fits well into Tier 1 or Tier 2 treasure finds. But the needed constraints have to be included, since caster items have built in constraints.
- As any number of magicians only items in the DMG to, restrict it by class!
- Staff of power, any number of wands, Tasha's shards, bard instruments, the rod of the pact keeper are restricted by class or by "only usable by a spell caster."
- Do the same with magical swords, particularly sentient ones.
- Restrict them to barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, maybe monks and rogues, and perhaps Pact of the Blade warlocks. (And get rid of that mess that is the Hexblade).

Theodoxus

2024-07-24, 08:53 AM

Matter of degrees. I would agree that as an initial idea, keeping it simple and non-traumatic would be ideal. But I would hope there'd be a "gritty realism" option that turned up the trauma one could inflict - at least down the line. Also, if these are specifically weapon based properties, then that would eliminate a lot of monsters being able to reciprocate against the PCs. For good or ill, I can't say.

The problems with this go back to the original game and the "hit location" scheme in the Blackmoor supplement.
First off the enemies get to use that on the PCs, and enemies often get a lot more attacks than PCs.

If using that as a starting point, sure. Doesn't need to be a hit location though. If they're weapon specific (which as I noted above would eliminate a lot of enemies one faces), then basic weapon damage type could inflict specific debilitating effects that are location agnostic. Slashing is amplified as loss of muscle use (not necessarily lopping of limbs, that's generally held in the realm of magic) let the player decide: leg or arm; if it hamstrings, reducing movement by half, or incapacitates a arm, it imposes disadvantage on attacks using that limb - that's easy to remember, no number crunching on the fly. It puts onus on the table to remember the conditions though. Veterans of 3.PF dealt with worse... Bludgeon might automatically make someone fail their concentration check if hit in the head, or smash ribs, making it hard to cast verbal spells. I'm just spitballing, but I'm sure a list of appropriate affects could be generated.

Secondly, we found that it slowed play down sufficiently that we abandoned it. There was certainly a bit of "wow, cool" factor when you chopped of an enemy's limb, but any number of monsters, like a giant octopus, lose a limb and keep on fighting.

I agree here. The last game I played that had hit location that wasn't random (like BattleTech), we just called shot to the neck. It was always the least armored, fewest HP location and would decapitate, game over to nearly everything. Basically everything had 6 HPs and an effective AC of 11... the campaign was short lived once we found that flaw.

Thirdly, adding to DM overhead, you also had to keep track of the "HP per body zone" to see where the limb (or head) was lost. While that isn't the only hit location scheme on would use (Runequest had a similar but different one when I played it, but it also had armor absorbing damage as did Tunnels and Trolls) it adds a lot of fiddly bits that 5e (IMO correctly) needed to clean out in terms of playability.

Yeah, it is definitely not a 'one size fits all' situation. D&D is the king of feeling rules-lite while packing away nearly a 1000 pages in its core rules. But I know DMs who would welcome the added load if it meant their players could do slightly more realistic damage with their weapons, and HP wasn't just a ball of lucky meat until you crack to the middle and knock-out / kill your opponent.

Not really. Hexblade is {censored}.
Try using sentient weapons. They are in the DMG. I am disappointed in WotC's modules / published adventures for not leaning into that particular tool that is available: sentient weapons as a treasure item. They have gated far too many weapons like that behind "legendary" or "artifact" rarity. (see the rarity and features of the White Plume Mountain quest rewards in this edition.
Thanks to bounded accuracy you don't really need a "+1 to hit" sword. As has been discussed on these forums with some frequency, if you take a sword with no "+ hit", but add sentience and "some other property" (weapon of warning is a fine example) you'll probably end up with a rare or uncommon rarity that fits well into Tier 1 or Tier 2 treasure finds. But the needed constraints have to be included, since caster items have built in constraints.
- As any number of magicians only items in the DMG to, restrict it by class!
- Staff of power, any number of wands, Tasha's shards, bard instruments, the rod of the pact keeper are restricted by class or by "only usable by a spell caster."
- Do the same with magical swords, particularly sentient ones.
- Restrict them to barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, maybe monks and rogues, and perhaps Pact of the Blade warlocks. (And get rid of that mess that is the Hexblade).

!00%. [As an aside, after listening to Unholy by Sam Smith, I've started replacing {censored} with "kink". And yeah, Hexblade is totally kink.]

Psyren

2024-07-24, 09:18 AM

That raises a different question though - if what you're after is "magic based gish with an array of magical moves" at what point do you realize you're just building a paladin or eldritch knight with extra steps?

warty goblin

2024-07-24, 09:29 AM

If I were to pursue a more injury focused approach to combat in a D&D type framework, I'd use a relatively broad set of conditions, rather than specific limb HP and hit locations. Those are a pain, and don't mesh at all well with the existing game structure. Instead go with something like:

Staggered lose dex bonus to AC.

Impaired lose 10 feet of movement.

Hurt can't take bonus actions.

Concussed can't concentrate on spells.

Off Guard The next attack against this creature has Advantage.

Vulnerable the next attack k thar hits this creature does + proficiency bonus damage, so long as the attacker can add their proficiency bonus to the attack roll.

And probably others. The key is that these aren't tied to specific pieces of anatomy, so there's no need to deal with how many HP a bug bugbear champion has in his left arm, and aren't explicitly linked to particular injuries so you don't have to narrate Monty Python black knight style combats where everybody is down a limb or two and just keeps trucking.

Now you can give physical combatants specific abilities that inflict these conditions if the target fails a save. You can also give specific monsters bonuses to resist particular conditions, or make them flat out immune (seems difficult to Impair a floating specter using a mundane hatchet) while still letting dudes with swords do something more dramatic than whittle away at HP every turn and try to shove every once and a while. Add in some general rules, e.g. targeting the same condition repeatedly automatically gives Disadvantage on attacks as you become predictable, and you're on your way to a usable system.

I'd very much keep inflicting these conditions tied to learned character techniques, rather than weapon types or classes. This lets the DM throttle monster access to them as appropriate, and gives a fun mode of advancement to the PCs. If you want specific weapons to be more or less effective against specific monsters there's already vulnerability and resistance mechanics. If Bob wants to play a fighter, it's because he wants to be good at (and getting better at) fighting, not just that he rolled up with an axe.

Segev

2024-07-24, 09:51 AM

One thing Exalted 3e introduced that I think took their magic items and elevated them to the kind of thing that makes Excalibur iconic to King Arthur is Evocations.

To put it in D&D terms, they were basically feats you could invest in that made you able to do cool things with This Specific Magic Item, and each magic item had themes for its Evocations, but you actually were expected to customize your own fir each wielder of the item.

Exalted is a XP-to-buy-things system, though, so you could choose to invest directly into Evocations for your signature items, or you could invest in your innate abilities or even stats and skills. This is harder to translate to a class-and-level-based system.

Magic items whose unique powers advance in parallel to the character's level would be much like the Sidekick rules: just extra power. And why not give the same kind of growing item to the caster? Honestly, no reason not to, but if this is to make up for the Martial's lack of power due to nonmagical 'guy at the gym' limitations, then also giving these to casters is defeating that purpose, at least a little.

But even as a parallel system, items-as-sidekicks, with Item Classes they can level up in and gain New abilities when wielded by this particular character, could be pretty cool.

Darth Credence

2024-07-24, 09:54 AM

Try using sentient weapons. They are in the DMG. I am disappointed in WotC's modules / published adventures for not leaning into that particular tool that is available: sentient weapons as a treasure item. They have gated far too many weapons like that behind "legendary" or "artifact" rarity. (see the rarity and features of the White Plume Mountain quest rewards in this edition.
Thanks to bounded accuracy you don't really need a "+1 to hit" sword. As has been discussed on these forums with some frequency, if you take a sword with no "+ hit", but add sentience and "some other property" (weapon of warning is a fine example) you'll probably end up with a rare or uncommon rarity that fits well into Tier 1 or Tier 2 treasure finds. But the needed constraints have to be included, since caster items have built in constraints.
- As any number of magicians only items in the DMG to, restrict it by class!
- Staff of power, any number of wands, Tasha's shards, bard instruments, the rod of the pact keeper are restricted by class or by "only usable by a spell caster."
- Do the same with magical swords, particularly sentient ones.
- Restrict them to barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, maybe monks and rogues, and perhaps Pact of the Blade warlocks. (And get rid of that mess that is the Hexblade).

I love sentient weapons. I have at least one sentient weapon locked to each class (and no diluting by multiclassing!) in my world, although most are already in someone's possession. One that they ran across briefly was based on the Singing Sword from Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and he sang a lot of Sinatra. It would only bond with a bard, specifically one who was willing to sing duets. It's an NPC and a weapon in one! They need to be used more, and there are detailed rules for creating them with the minor and major benefits and detriments.

Back to the stuff for martials. I said above that if it were me, I'd coopt the spell points system to make martial points, starting with the battle maneuvers and increasing to one shot kill as kind of an equivalent to a 9th level slot (I took "Power Word Kill" as my baseline). I also thought about injuries being added as part of control effects, and I think that it could be done without too much extra work, even with some that are lingering. And by "without too much extra work" I mean no more than what is expected from a sorcerer.

Let's say we have a 7th-level fighter. They would have 38 martial points to spend per day. For 3 martial points, they can use their action (or possibly one attack out of all they can do, I'd need to work it out) to throw sand in the eyes of their opponent (attack roll or save TBD). The enemy would be blinded by the sand, and would either need a save to clear it through blinking or the like, or use a full action to wipe them clear. They could also bump up the number of martial points used to increase the number of enemies they can blind, just like upcasting blindness/deafness. Enough additional points and it becomes something they cannot recover from without being out of the fight entirely, laying down and having their eyes flushed with water - aka a short rest.

Or they could spend the same number of slots for "phrenospasm" (yeah, bad name), or getting the wind knocked out of them. Direct the blow in such a way that the air is knocked out of their lungs, and they can do nothing other than attempt to get air until they recover. This would be effectively like the "Hold Person" spell, with saves to recover. This is also making me think all of these should be initial attack rolls because martials attack, while recovering could be saves.

Not everything would be a direct port of a spell, these are just the easiest things for me to say here without giving it a ton of thought. I'd probably also throw something to the people who want the most basic fighter imaginable, and include a "magic weapon" equivalent allowing them to increase their damage and to hit rolls. Probably make it so that if that's all they do, they can run it pretty much constantly.

ETA -

Fizban's has the hoard weapons, which increases in power, although the book has them do so when they are in the hoard. I've used them as just increasing in power over time.

Pex

2024-07-24, 11:57 AM

I think if we look to weapons and a system like Injuries, we could work in a way that martials can have longer lasting effects as Tendril mentioned.

Take out an eye, chop of a limb, internal injury, etc.

Hit with a bludgeoning weapon, maybe you have the option to break ribs. DC 10 con save whenever they attempt an action or lose the action and can't use reactions.

Slashing weapon? Hack off a hand, now that giant can't wield their greatclub, or maybe they can still wield it in one hand with disadvantage, who knows? Point is you're doing something lol.

Not a cure-all, just an idea for one possibility.

Looks good on paper, won't work in practice. It fails as soon as it applies to bad guys attacking PCs with PCs suffering the same effects. Once a PC loses an arm or a leg the PC might as well be dead. Permanent blindness due to loss of eyes? Make a new character. It breaks verisimilitude if only PCs can do this. It forces Regenerate to become a 2nd level spell since it's technically weaker than Revivify bringing the dead to life. It becomes a spell tax for those spellcasters who have the spell and woe to the party you run out of spell slots.

It might work if it just applied "injuries" with game effects of only a minus number to attacks, AC, or apply Advantage/Disadvantage. Saving throw to avoid is necessary because players would want one for their PCs. However, this is just Natural 1 Critical Fumbles without the Natural 1. It disproportionately harms warriors because they're the ones who get attacked the most. Spells have their effects like fear and charm, but enemy spellcasters target all PCs equally overall in the general sense. Despite all that this makes combat more complex crunchy and fiddly having to keep track of penalties and will make combat take longer because everyone is doing math on every attack roll more than simply adding their attack modifier. This is what 5E was purposely avoiding from the 3E/Pathfinder games.

stoutstien

2024-07-24, 12:30 PM

The trick to this stuff is to have the illusion of the PCs and team monster using the same rules when they really don't. Not a far fetched idea because that's how they work now. A wolf lunges and tries to rip your leg out form under you works very differently than a PC shoving a target the same way that npc spell casters don't need to worry about saving spell slots for a later encounter is different even if the feature is identical to the one player uses.

So you can add this to NPCs when its needed but there no real reason to assume that it's any different from anything else where it's used as needed rather than a linchpin to the player's immersion.

Tendril

2024-07-24, 12:36 PM

I mean, my personal preference would have it to not be magical, I'm just not sure how to do that without thematically becoming too close to a fighter. And in terms of mechanics, well, spell slots and long rest resources just aren't what I'm looking for. And I'm saying that as someone who really likes the look of the new EK.

Speaking of EK tho, I'm glad to see the attack replacement mechanic in the PHB. Features that can replace attacks really are a good way to martials to do more than just hit things, without getting in the way of usual play patterns and action economy. I hope we see more things like that going forward for martials.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 02:05 PM

Looks good on paper, won't work in practice. It fails as soon as it applies to bad guys attacking PCs with PCs suffering the same effects.
I have a few thoughts, all in disagreement with this sentiment:

1. Some monsters can already suffocate or decapitate PCs.

2. I see absolutely ZERO reason why monsters would have access to this just because PCs also have access to it. Aragorn decapitates Lurtz in their fight. In fact, he lops off an arm, impales the orc, and then decapitates him. None of these things ever happen to Aragorn.

3. I can't imagine designing something that will give the world and the solar system and the universe to everyone lol. There's got to be give somewhere. When it comes to wanting warriors to have these types of impacts without turning them into "magical swordsman", I think something like this is thematic and would be fun to implement, especially in the way Theodoxus mentions where it relies on attack and damage roll thresholds. That would keep it a bit more exciting like a critical hit.

4. Monsters have features that players don't, and vice versa, so there is already an asymmetry between the two.

This, to my mind, is adding an unnecessary restriction in trying to rehab martials.

JNAProductions

2024-07-24, 02:12 PM

If a Tier One Fighter with a sword can lop off a hand like Darth Vader, I'd expect a Gladiator [CR 5] to be able to do the same.

And while it's true that some NPCs have features players don't and vice versa, there's generally reasons for it.
PCs can't use Mind Blast. Illithids can. I think the reasoning there should be pretty obvious.

The exception to this are abilities that are JUST numbers. Like the aforementioned Gladiator, it has Brute, adding an extra die of damage on melee attacks. PCs don't really have a one-to-one equivalent, but that's there just so he does appropriate damage. It's not something that changes what a Gladiator can do fundamentally, it just boosts the numbers.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 02:17 PM

Yeah it's just not something that really stands out to me as a major sticking point. People complain all the time that "realism" gets in the way of martial progress, and here we are saying a system like this wouldn't be good because players wouldn't like it because it MUST be used against them as well.

It's like... I get that's an opinion, but I haven't heard anything compelling on why it has to be implemented that way.

If that's the case, give me Parry. Give me Leadership. Give me Brute. Give me Pack Tactics. Etc.

JNAProductions

2024-07-24, 02:21 PM

It's like... I get that's an opinion, but I haven't heard anything compelling on why it has to be implemented that way.

If that's the case, give me Parry. Give me Leadership. Give me Brute. Give me Pack Tactics. Etc.

Parry-Defensive Duelist
Leadership-Bless, Bardic Inspiration, some Maneuvers are similar
Brute-Brute subclass (UA)
Pack Tactics-be a Kobold

Also, what do you plan to give up to get these features?
You could, if the DM allows it, play a Gladiator. You'd have Brave, Brute, Multiattack (not Extra Attack), Shield Bash, and Parry. And nothing else.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 02:26 PM

But again, this is an asymmetry. Why do all (applicable) monsters get a new Inflict Injury system, but if I want monster features, I have to be a certain race, or a certain class, or a certain sublcass, etc?

That's the point. It already isn't symmetrical, so why insist on it?

At the end of the day, a system like this won't be implemented because D&D isn't that kind of game. But seems like a weird place to insist that monsters and players need to be exactly alike. At least in my opinion of course.

Darth Credence

2024-07-24, 04:04 PM

If a Tier One Fighter with a sword can lop off a hand like Darth Vader, I'd expect a Gladiator [CR 5] to be able to do the same.

Don't have them lopping off a hand, or poking out an eye. Have them dislocate a shoulder - can't use that arm until someone pops it back in, which can be done with an action by someone else or by themselves if they can slam their shoulder against a wall. Have them get sand in their eyes until they can clear it through blinking or splashing water, or perhaps get pepper juice in their eyes that will blind them until they can have a lie down with a cold compress on their eyes to recover. Have them get hit in a nerve cluster that gives short-term paralysis until they succeed on a Con check to clear it (no idea if that's actually a thing, but it was cool when Mal was immune to it in Serenity). Short of death, there is probably a decent way to have the same effect across an encounter or a day without being permanent.

Pex

2024-07-24, 06:11 PM

That's the point. It already isn't symmetrical, so why insist on it?

Not every monster has pact tactics. Not every monster has goblin cunning. The DM has access to everything just by choosing to have a monster with that Thing in the encounter. The player will only have whatever his PC can have. Also, why can't a bad guy goblin or orc have class levels? Why can't a bad guy human have class levels?

Psyren

2024-07-24, 07:20 PM

I'd say we're getting even better than attack replacements in a lot of cases - they're opening the game up to more things that are actionless entirely (i.e. triggered as part of specific other actions you'd be taking anyway.) Examples include letting the following be done as part of an action: drawing/sheathing weapons, TWF with the Nick property, Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon, Vengeance Paladin's Vow of Enmity etc.

I was also really worried during the playtest when they were experimenting with the Jump Action but that seems to have gotten canned.

Dr.Samurai

2024-07-24, 08:16 PM

The heart of the intent is in the right place. It makes the game unplayable in practice unless you're running a one-shot arena fight. The bad guys are meant to die anyway, so it doesn't matter they take permanent penalties. For PCs it's a death spiral and yes, it will break verisimilitude bad guys can't do it too. Individual monsters can do things PCs can't and cannot do things PCs can. The DM always can do everything. That's where the symmetry lies.
Well the Injury system was inspiration, but what if the conditions were different? I don't care so much if the condition lasts forever, since most monsters will be killed. HOWEVER, that said, it's cool for recurring villains if the martials could indeed inflict permanent injuries like that. Adds a bit to the dynamic.

But for encounter long conditions that require healing or actions to remove, I think it would be fun. To some degree, complaints about slowing the game down don't penetrate for me. I don't play with D&D whizkids that take their spellcasting turns super fast, so I'm used to combat slowing down already.

Witty Username

2024-07-25, 12:20 AM

Parry-Defensive Duelist
Leadership-Bless, Bardic Inspiration, some Maneuvers are similar
Brute-Brute subclass (UA)
Pack Tactics-be a Kobold

Sadly lost in the purge, taken from us before its time.

--
I think the bigger problem is one of player fantasy, fighter types want to play the character that is no bull just badass. but that means nonsense goes against the fantasy, so we are left with muted realism in the face of of heroic and mythic fantasy.

If this is the plan, I think the only effective option is to just stick with low level play, like a E6 style game of yore. Otherwise, we need some Greek hero in our fighter to carry game balance a bit better.

I think that depends a lot what a character brings to the table, If a character is mostly or only bringing usefulness in combat, this might be true. That being said if they have stuff in social encounters, or support features or personality and combat is less of a focus, its more manageable and brings things to the table that would be hard to do otherwise.

Although, in RPGs, I feel like an ideal aiming point is Princess Bride. So I do be bias.

Tendril

2024-07-25, 12:36 AM

I was also really worried during the playtest when they were experimenting with the Jump Action but that seems to have gotten canned.

Yeah, they've put a lot of effort into making sure the action economy has a better flow to it, all great stuff. I think bonus action jumps got absolutely slammed in the polls, it works in BG3 but not 5e proper. Overall 5.5 looks good, I'm mostly just hoping WotC goes a little bit harder on making content for the game moving forward, there's a lot of potential.

Is spellcasting in the new edition going to be significantly less interesting? [Archive] - Page 2 (2024)

References