Oh, I get it now, Fighters /should/ have spells.

[Orion]

Midnight. It's not that the ideas you're presenting are bad (although, to be clear: they are bad). It's not just that you obviously know they're bad because you are trying to preemptively shut down criticism by saying you yourself would not play the hypothetical game you're sketching. It's not even the fact that you are swearing at the hypothetical critics of your hypothetical game that even you don't want to play. Really, it's more that while doing all this you also appear to be innovating at the frontier of punctuation science.

Somebody brought up Shadzar, but I don't think the comparison stands. I have substantial disagreements with Shadzar, but at least it's fairly clear what Shadzar wants and Shadzar makes a reasonably convincing argument from his professed (and abhorrent) values to his favored roleplaying system. You don't get to be a shadzar until you're willing to actually defend a game other people hate.

Really I view you as more of a hybrid PhoneLobster/Judging Eagle. Like PhoneLobster you have correctly latched onto something that is bad or at least flawed, then proceeded to fling invective at everyone who supports that element, whether in reality or in your paranoid delusions. And like phonelobster you are angry at everyone who doesn't recognize the superiority of your own mechanics sight unseen. You diverge from the ideal phonelobster type by downgrading from "my master game exists buy you can't see it" to "I haven't/am not going to writ emy master game and also it sucks." You resemble Judging Eagle in that I struggle at times to justifiably label your posts as English.

In conclusion, can I have some of your tequila? Because I bet it's delicious.

[Kaelik]

Really, it's more that while doing all this you also appear to be innovating at the frontier of punctuation science.

...

You resemble Judging Eagle in that I struggle at times to justifiably label your posts as English.

Silly Orion...

This is the correct way to punctuate sentences...

You have to end every sentence with three periods and a new paragraph...

Or else you are some kind of weirdo...

[Midnight_v]

Midnight. It's not that the ideas you're presenting are bad (although, to be clear: they are bad). It's not just that you obviously know they're bad because you are trying to preemptively shut down criticism by saying you yourself would not play the hypothetical game you're sketching. It's not even the fact that you are swearing at the hypothetical critics of your hypothetical game that even you don't want to play. Really, it's more that while doing all this you also appear to be innovating at the frontier of punctuation science.

Somebody brought up Shadzar, but I don't think the comparison stands. I have substantial disagreements with Shadzar, but at least it's fairly clear what Shadzar wants and Shadzar makes a reasonably convincing argument from his professed (and abhorrent) values to his favored roleplaying system. You don't get to be a shadzar until you're willing to actually defend a game other people hate.

Really I view you as more of a hybrid PhoneLobster/Judging Eagle. Like PhoneLobster you have correctly latched onto something that is bad or at least flawed, then proceeded to fling invective at everyone who supports that element, whether in reality or in your paranoid delusions. And like phonelobster you are angry at everyone who doesn't recognize the superiority of your own mechanics sight unseen. You diverge from the ideal phonelobster type by downgrading from "my master game exists buy you can't see it" to "I haven't/am not going to writ emy master game and also it sucks." You resemble Judging Eagle in that I struggle at times to justifiably label your posts as English.

In conclusion, can I have some of your tequila? Because I bet it's delicious.

On that note, it's obviously time for me to walk away from the computer, and get some sleep. Thanks for playing. *shrug*

[Whipstitch]

It's really, REALLY fucking hard to take posts very seriously when they advocate Schrödinger's Fireball bullshit.

[erik]

First off, I don't think you have taken anything I said personally, but I'd just want to stave off any misunderstandings before they happen. My cussing is mostly a feature of our den environment, not any animosity.

In this model of D&D we acknowledge right out the box that SPELLS are stupid bullshit. So were cutting the balls off them, to give other motherfuckers a chance. Period.

I'm all for neutering spells and getting rid of things that remove character agency. That is, attacks that bypass all means of defense. Polymorph, Teleport and others definitely need tailoring such that they do not bring more grief than joy. I like shapechanging, but I don't want it to be a mandatory eponymous buff that is the difference between relevance and irrelevance. I like being able to *BAMF*, but don't want high level fights to basically be scry and die hit squads. I think we can curtail these things without bringing magic down illusion levels.

Shadow Conjuration. In this model all summoning is something akin to shadow conjuration. So you can summon a "bit of demon" from the nether or whatever the fuck but the thing where you Gate in solars? Fuck that. Fuck that shit forever. You can't have that. We can't have that. We can't have that shit at all and expect to get anywhere. So yeah summonings only get as far as shadow conjuration in power.

But I can and must have that. Bringing over actual beings from other planes is a staple that I would be remiss in leaving out. They may have limitations like that they can't pass thresholds/magic circles/limited range/duration of stay/caster must bind it with his will/water washes away the summoning and banishes em, whatever.

Hell, if you can go visit another dimension without being shadowy then it stands to reason that others can visit yours likewise.

Nor can you very well by default resist that a giant stone wall was created in your general vicinity.

Again... not amazingly conjuration.
Under this model you totally can just walk/bust/slide through this summoning. Cause I don't believe this shit.

I don't like that change. Then you get fucking Steve the skeptic ruining everything good and awesome in the world.

Hey, remember Almstad?
What do you mean remember, it's like one of the biggest cities in the Ur Empire- did something happen to it?
Well, you know the Great Wizard's Dam which held back the mad god's flood thousands of years ago?
Yeah, one of the seven magical wonders of the world. Duh. I saw it with my family when I was a kid.
Well, some dumbfuck tourist was over there last week and just couldn't believe it.
Oh. Oh, shit.
Wiped Almstad right off the fucking map. Under a hundred feet of water now.

And if you didn't like Frank's scenario then imagine a bridge supported by wood that is burned by magic, or a stone bridge that is structurally weakened to the breaking point by castings of stone to mud. Basically, something where magic is used to cause something that has a non-magical reaction.

If everything is an illusion, then that ruins plenty of things that I think are valuable to a fantasy environment, and it causes plenty of conceptual problems.

At what point is a forest fire started by a fireball no longer illusory?

Magic totally is reality altering in D&D settings. Can't get around that.

Thats a part of the problem. Until you address the fundamental power of magic in D&D no on else will ever be able to play.

I think it is better to treat magic as a source of natural forces that are every bit as real in the fantasy realm. Perhaps "magic is reality-altering" wasn't the best phrasing. Magic simply is reality in fantasy settings.

You got it wrong Erik. I wasn't shooting at flight. I was shooting at buff spells in general, and you might have missed it but "Polymorph"... and other spell that allow the wizard to be better thant the "VAH" all day long. Fuck you and those spell right the fuck off. Cause it exemplifies the problem.

My bad. I presumed wrongly there. In this case, I think that the problem is that martial classes need their own buffs, and buffs should be kept somewhat on rails so that things do not get utterly imbalanced. The problem is mostly when wizards get buffs and fighters do not, and that wizard buffs are so freaking superior that they alone were more powerful than the combined class features of fighters. That's a problem that is fairly unrelated to duration.

There's plenty of ways to skin that cat. Durations do not necessarily get to the bottom of things, and there may be spell effects that you want to persist for longer. I am not ontologically opposed to having a concentration/fatigue mechanic used to maintain all spells. Having a limit to the number of buffs you can layer on is certainly a good thing, and there are a variety of means to enforce such limits.

Conjuration is the most notorious offender. Its has the most things that let the wizard play god. The "I conjure boulders" bullshit is pretty much that bullshit.
If there's a spell that conjure bolders Right NOW: Then it should require a reflex save. . . an really, Thats OKAY.

If there's a spell that forces bolders to fall on you: No save. Then that by definition is a bullshit spell.
Therefore falling under the "I call bullshit" rules of magic. Will: Disbelive"

My preferred shenanigan for this scenario:

Make a boulder invisible, float it telekinetically over enemy, and then cancel both the invisibility and telekinesis. Then there's nothing to disbelieve. Mwa-hahahahahaha.

A rock falling at you should provide some way to avoid it. Maybe not a saving throw per se, just treat it as an attack roll. I don't think anyone is a serious advocate for "rocks fall, everyone dies". You mentioned Reflex as a viable option and I'm fine with that so long as Disbelieve is NOT a viable option.

I don't like having Will: Disbelieve be the first line of defense against an overly large amount of magic. I think it is a bad idea that does not make for very interesting or immersive game play.

I recall with fondness whenever my gaming group ran into something that was out of our depth (or just something a character would really not be pleased by), our *last* line of defense was to say "I disbelieve" usually right before we died just on the hope that it was an illusion. If we did it more often than that, it would have been too much and gone from fondly remembered, to a game we didn't play much.

[Kaelik]

On that note, it's obviously time for me to walk away from the computer, and get some sleep. Thanks for playing. *shrug*

If he actually had me on ignore and wasn't reading my posts them making his cute little ignore announcements I would want to edit my post to literally just be that text.

Then tomorrow when he got curious it would be extremely hilarious.

[Username17]

Blowing up a bridge as you describe is 1... bullshit, in D&D terms, but if its a Massive stone bridge there's not many fucking spell that insta-DO that without using wish or miracle magic.

Shatter. It instantaneously destroys a stone bridge that is up to 10 feet wide, or which has a necessary support column that is itself up to 10 feet wide. It's a 2nd level spell. Warp Wood instantly destroys a wooden bridge of level dependent size (at 16th level, you can destroy 80 feet by 80 feet of bridge). That's 2nd level too.

Having effects on the real world is something that is going to happen. And as soon as you get into Heisenberg Cat bullshit where the effects on the real world are physically different to different observers, resolution of game events is essentially impossible. Shadow Conjuration is the most broken, fucked up thing that ever graced D&D. Not because it's the most overpowered, but simply because resolving that shit is a nightmare that makes no sense.

-Username17

[virgil]

Shatter. It instantaneously destroys a stone bridge that is up to 10 feet wide, or which has a necessary support column that is itself up to 10 feet wide. It's a 2nd level spell.

How does the area version of this spell do that, which seems to be the part you're referring to? The material & size limitations look like they would prevent a stone bridge from being much affected. Maybe a smaller one with the single target version by targetting the keystone; which might be hard, as dense as stone is.

[Endovior]

Agreed. You can't have something that's 'partly real' or 'real unless disbelieved' or whatever; that shit is inherently inconsistent, and leads to all sorts of problems. You could consistently say that mages just plain don't have any real world effects, period; that whatever it appears they are doing, it ultimately boils down to inflicting mental damage on their opponents and knocking them out... but then you've got Psychics, not Wizards. Psychics, being conceptually far more narrow then Wizards, are much easier to balance... but they don't have that D&D feel.

That said... yeah, Shatter manifestly does not work like Frank's suggesting; he seems to have confused it with Disintegrate. The radius version of Shatter doesn't hit stone at all; it affects bullshit small items, made of specific material types (crystal, glass, ceramic, or porcelain... NOT stone) within a radius. There's also the single-target version, which works on weight (you might be able to use it on only the most important part of the bridge by winning a bullshit test against the DM, but since that would let you affect ANY item whatsoever, ignoring the limits of the spell, that's a bad ruling), and the 'crystalline creatures' version, which works on nothing except a tiny handful of bullshit monsters.

So yeah, Shatter is NOT an anti-bridge spell. Warp Wood, maybe; but it falls under the same 'entire object' clause; unless you're throwing down a big enough Warp Wood (or multiple consecutive Warp Woods, as the spell specifically allows for that) to affect the entire bridge, there is no effect.

[Fuchs]

Wouldn't MV's game be "D&D, stop at level 4"?

[tussock]

...Not much of a team player, but should be reasonably good in battle aside from a couple of obvious counters. I don't really care about planar travel like some around these parts because it's all a plot point anyway.

And this does... what exactly? You haven't explained at all how this would in any way allow them to solve any problems outside combat (indeed, you are explicitly defaulting on that responsibility by leaving it to "the plot" or perhaps more accurately "the DM" to solve all those pesky out-of-combat problems without any real actions on the protagonist's part - Harry Potter style).

Team game, not the Fighter's problem. If there's instant travel to be done, the DM provides a target location and a caster takes the whole party there with one spell. In all seriousness, not everyone wants to deal with that shit and it's OK to have a class that isn't involved in it.


Having said that, there should totally be a feat to follow people who teleport and plane shift, and leave a hole big enough for the entire party to follow along. Just for a few rounds, because your mundane nature redefines how other people's teleport works. I'll ignore it and leave the caster to lock them down for me.

Also, that's, like, half a character at best. I'm picturing at least 2 feats of that quality per tier, so fill it out how you like.

And even within the context of combat, you haven't given the character any actual way to win fights. Sure, he's protected from some stuff, he can look at a Medusa and not die, for example. But he can't do shit to a Hill Giant or a Harpy Archer.

Damage. I get you're accustomed to 1-round no-save-and-die stuff, but I'm more into the traditional way of ending a fight and tend to ban any stupid shit that does that without a big damage expression. Fighters are a big damage expression, and thus useful in a team of casters who need one.

He moves at moderate speed, suppresses magic, and has a very sticky reach. Honestly, who gives a fuck? What does he actually do that makes the party win? You've made a character that solves zero problems out of combat and zero problems in combat. He's just a piece of favorable terrain the rest of the party can drag along with them.

Yes, I'm trying to make the sort of thing I want a fighter to be, which is basically a piece of sticky favourable terrain that quickly kills anything getting stuck in it without being insta-killed by half the monster manual in return.

There would be other, different feats for your plane-hopping, air-walking, no-save-and-die "I don't need no stinking Wizards" kind of a guy. Or you could just stick with your Tome Fighter, because that totally works well at that scale of game where a DM accepts all the rocket-tag. The advantage here is in the benefits of tiered slots, which you solved by locking together a bunch of high level effects into all the feats. Cool, but separate them out and people get more choice, less problems with later choices being less preferred, and so on.

For tussock's sake, "lets just nerf all the spells".

Please don't. They're not that bad, and mostly do what they're supposed to if the DM is willing to be a dick now and then. I mean, AD&D spells are almost all written better than 3e ones, Monte "accidentally" added some really fucking stupid power-ups when he "standardised" everything as part of his plan to make life easier for high level Wizards and all, but at most the saves are too hard and they're missing a few mundane counter-measures. The effects of the spells are generally pretty good, better than most of the Pathfinder nerfs at least.

You can't expect all offensive acts to allow a saving throw. That's stupid. If I blow up a bridge with my magic, the bridge is fucking gone. If you needed to get across the chasm in a reasonable amount of time and now you can't, that's too fucking bad.

I can think of, like, three movies where the good guy jump-climbs his way up the slowly tumbling pieces of the broken bridge or arch. I mean, more of a Swashbuckler or Rogue skill trick where the Fighter switches to a bow, but whatever. Like you can outrun an explosion or artfully tumble your way down a 200'+ cliff, that's just something high level D&D should do.

Could people please not try and argue there are things Wizards cannot do should they put their mind to it. On account of that being infinitely untrue. What Wizards can't do is everything all at once. So could other people please not try to argue that a theoretical Wizard can counter any particular build, because, Duh, of course, but probably not every Wizard right now. Outside, you know, fly and free action and DD and save-or-die and ....

[...You Lost Me]

It's not that the ideas you're presenting are bad... It's not even the fact that you are swearing at the hypothetical critics of your hypothetical game that even you don't want to play. Really, it's more that while doing all this you also appear to be innovating at the frontier of punctuation science.

Sigg'd.

[Lago PARANOIA]

tussock, what you're missing is that the fighter still doesn't proportionally pull his weight for the party. It's okay for one class to be unable to mass charm or organize troops or gather information or enable the party to travel or create manufactured goods or whatever -- but the fighter can do NONE of that. This problem is further compounded by:

1.) Classes like the (fixed, hopefully) Paladin and Swordmage offer a competitive, if not outright superior piece of the 'movable terrain' pie. And they do more shit out of combat, too. Unless you plan to make the fighter way, way, waaaaay more powerful than any other class at this role it does not justify this worthless goatfelcher's existence. And doing so has its own set of problems.

2.) 'Movable Terrain' becomes increasingly inappropriate as a justification schtick as time goes on. Giant Scorpions are much more deadly than the TPK-causing Giant Crabs, but no one is afraid of them because people can dance circles around them. Even if the Giant Scorpion is being buffed by a spellcaster so that it moves faster and flies (intelligent) people still don't shit their pants, because the number of ways to get around this problem goes up as well.

3.) The fighter is not just pulling his weight in the gameplay section but also not in the storytelling minigame. If the fighter is just a movable piece of terrain, what the fuck is he doing when the people aren't in combat? Providing superfluous dialogue like the odious comic relief or love interest and wasting peoples' time? Playing Smash Bros.?

[Midnight_v]

So I drank, posted, drank some more, posted, and really now that I've sobered up I find that you're still assholes. However, being lucid, has drawbacks like being able to see what everyone was raging about. *Sigh*
The more I look at this thread the morning after the more I realize D&D is quite fucked in many ways, and will never be balanced in any way that most people are going to be pleased with. Even when you make something lauded by the people here, its derided almost everywhere else. The opposite is true, as well, because there are actual numbers crunched here, and numbers scare people apparently. Also, people really love broken shit.
When you have things that bear serious effect with zero interaction things are going to be broke. I used to play quite a bit of Mtg, I really think thats where I heard people saying "broke" in a way that made sense. Tolarian Academy, and really Urza's block in general refined that principle in my head and I KNOW that someone "Not letting you interact" is, one of the major indicators of a broken game.
I'm sure that there is no simple solutions akin to what I was advocating, in my drunken haze. I also gather that its a massive effot to balance all the spells, but I'm genuinely suprised that no one has actually put forth that effort long ago.
Signifigant change can't be made without offending someones versimilitude.
- Magic cannot be signifigantly depowered overall, because really people feel like magic "IS" supposed to be all powerful.
- Mundanes cannot be signifigantly upgraded because they conceptually and definitively stop being mundane.

Angel summoner and BMX Bandit cannot be taken seriously as a "team".

But I can and must have that.

This is where Lago Paranoia, and even Kaelik start to sound right.
What can you give mundane guy without giving him "Posse of Angels" feat, that unlike leadership is a mundane only feat or "aritifact sword" in the same family.
Also...

Having said that, there should totally be a feat to follow people who teleport and plane shift, and leave a hole big enough for the entire party to follow along. Just for a few rounds, because your mundane nature redefines how other people's teleport works.

There is a tome of battle manuever that does that. The bolded part kills fairies when you say it out loud. I mean that justification sounds bad.

[Username17]

Tolarian Academy, and really Urza's block in general refined that principle in my head and I KNOW that someone "Not letting you interact" is, one of the major indicators of a broken game.

Uhhh... no. Not "letting" people interact is a major indicator that your game is bigger in scope than "two guys locked in a closet, fighting to the death". In a game with, for example, more than two sides, the idea that people could do things that you don't want them to do that nonetheless do not involve you in any particular way is simply something you have to accept. Fire demons burn the fuck out of tiny men who you'd really rather weren't being burned alive and you don't get to interact with that because it doesn't directly concern you.

Magic the Gathering models two people fighting to the death in a closet. There is no "third side", there is no "peace". Literally every single thing your opponent does is something you do not want them to do. Every buff to them is a curse to you. Every gain of health is negating your damage. Blah blah blah. In a role playing game, that is bullshit. Each and every character has a potentially fluid allegiance and the vast majority of actions taken by anyone have fuck-all to do with you.

-Username17

[erik]

Signifigant change can't be made without offending someones versimilitude.
- Magic cannot be signifigantly depowered overall, because really people feel like magic "IS" supposed to be all powerful.
- Mundanes cannot be signifigantly upgraded because they conceptually and definitively stop being mundane.

Not all-powerful. Multiple people have said that definitively, magic does need nerfing in some areas. But it should be able to effect real and permanent change. Making things illusory just creates more problems than it solves. And I thought everyone is on the same page that at a certain point mundanes obviously cannot compete.

So the solution isn't to bring magic down to stupid-level where it is imaginary and creates loads of conceptual problems while not being able to deliver many popular fantasy tropes, but instead to accept that everyone is going to be magical in some way or another once you get to a certain phase in fantasy. Then you're all playing on the same level and everyone contributes. Then you just have to make sure everyone has interesting options, and to police the actual broken crap.

Angel summoner and BMX Bandit cannot be taken seriously as a "team".

But I can and must have that.

This is where Lago Paranoia, and even Kaelik start to sound right.
What can you give mundane guy without giving him "Posse of Angels" feat, that unlike leadership is a mundane only feat or "aritifact sword" in the same family.

Are you trying to imply that I said that BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner are a team that I can and must have. That's a pretty shitty strawman if so. Let me be especially clear, at no point have I supported BMX Bandit as a serious fantasy option. I do, however, think that being able to summon demons is cool and I would derive more enjoyment from a fantasy realm that included that option rather than one that did not.

The problem in that team isn't Angel Summoner (though his role is incredibly bland and boring, that is a problem of execution), it is BMX Bandit. He could totally be pimping out his own supernatural abilities, flying on his bike, able to slice the heads off of tons of terrorists as he flies by doing a wheelie, whatever. The problem is dipshits who think that BMX Bandit is a concept that should survive into high level play. At some point it is no longer good enough. The solution is not to make everything magical illusory, because that just does not work on so many levels.

[Midnight_v]

Bullshit Frank.

Combat. Combat in D&D is overwhelmingly 2 sided, and as you say rocket taggy. You can diplomacy motherfuckers into submission, and you can save or die them but ultimately when we're quantifying the "Offensive actions" that can be taken saying "You don't get to go" is fucking broke.
You're seriously arguing that its OKAY, that only certain people get to play the game past a certain level. When you've spend literally months of your life arguing the opposite.

In a role playing game, that is bullshit. Each and every character has a potentially fluid allegiance and the vast majority of actions taken by anyone have fuck-all to do with you.

Fluid allgiance... pretty much you can either be on team party OR Team Monster, and that's relatively it. I suppose you could be on team dues ex, but thats just more bullshit.

So yeah you can, at anytime parley for peace, and allow a capture, in D&D, and the Story can GO ON, and thats pretty much against intelligent foes who don't want you for food, right then. That doesn't mean that its okay to let kevin arnold, and harry potter meet the same challenges. Seriously what the fuck are you talking about here? I say that cause obviously I'm not expressing my main idea in a format that can be easily grasped.

What I'm saying is that the discrepancies between playing a "Mundane" and a "caster" have got to go. However, if you listen to all the bleeting sheep out there they'll straight up tell you they don't WANT that shit to go. Even when you make wuxia man... bitching, Endless bitching, because it offends enough peoples versimilitude.
Even if for example we do what Tussock seems to suggest and give mundane powers, magical abilities, shit like blasphemy spam would still exist, shit like that needs to g - o.
You cannot with straight face tell me that its okay to blasphemy spam the players. There is no elegant solution, really, from what I can see and I see now why people keep saying "easier to make a new game from scratch" at this point we virtually have no disagreement. You can fight for a few levels then start getting super powers or gtfo.
It sucks but thats the only allowable paradigm when god level magic is out there.

Edit: Erik you're right give them all superpowers. Clearly, thats the only workable design.

[Username17]

Bullshit Frank.

Combat. Combat in D&D is overwhelmingly 2 sided, and as you say rocket taggy. You can diplomacy motherfuckers into submission, and you can save or die them but ultimately when we're quantifying the "Offensive actions" that can be taken saying "You don't get to go" is fucking broke.

You are not even describing a role playing game.

In a role playing game, you are allowed to act when you are not literally on the battlefield. There are creatures, both on and off the battlefield, who are of unknown allegiance. Creatures are not red and green fucking dots.

There are things people can do that you don't want them to do that you can't do anything about. Fuck, there are things people are doing that you don't want them to do that you don't even know about. There are things people have done that you didn't want them to do that you won't ever find out about. And if you're making a role playing game, rather than just a "two people fighting to the death in a closet" simulator, you're going to have to fucking model that.

You're seriously arguing that its OKAY, that only certain people get to play the game past a certain level. When you've spend literally months of your life arguing the opposite.

Stop being retarded. Seriously: just stop it. I said nothing of the sort. I said that it is unreasonable to expect to have any opportunity to "do something" about every action that every single creature that you don't like takes. Because a role playing game is not a "two people stabbing each other in the face while trapped in a closet" game.

Or to put it another way: you just upped the definition of "not playing the game" to include "Shazznak the Demon attacks Bob the Cleric and 100% of that interaction is resolved between Shazznak and Bob and 0% between either of those assholes and your character because you aren't Shazznak or Bob and have to wait for your fucking turn to take a fucking action." And if you want to rant about a bullshit definition like that, then: yes. Shazznak is taking his fucking turn and Bob is fucking defending and you aren't either of those people and if it makes you sad that you have to sit out of that interaction then I will gleefully collect your fucking tears and drink them.

-Username17

[deaddmwalking]

I'm of the opinion that the Fighter (and others of that type) need more conceptual space without actually being 'magic'. For example, why can't a fighter 'cut through a spell with his sword'? Some people think that it requires magic to fight magic, but there's plenty of literature that supports a different style... Why is blocking a blast of dragon fire with a shield magical?

What it comes down to, effects can be quasi-magical if they don't LOOK magical. The second the laser-eyes come out, it sucks for people that like idea of a martial characrter...

A lot of it has to do with 'role-projection'. People like to imagine an ideal version of themselves able to kill monsters and save the princess. If you need magic to do those things (something apparently lacking in the real world) that's two steps to get to that fantasy... But if Godzilla rose out of the ocean right now and I could pick up my Ren Faire sword and beat his ass, well, I'm living the Fighter Fantasy without magic. In point of fact, both are clearly 'fantastic', but for some, the requirement to have magic is a 'bridge too far'.

So, while Fighters/Martial Classes need boosting, there's a lot of room to improve them while still dealing with 'mundane' stuff... The Feats in the Tome Books with increasing benefit based on Base Attack Bonus are a step in the right direction there. Increasing their 'mundane power' and then providing some additional magical defenses covers MOST of the necessary ground. Most of the rest can be covered by making sure a single wizard can't do EVERYTHING (even if it takes preparing different spells on different days). Scaling back the options that wizards have (without making magic less meaningful) is also an option.

And if the Wizard can Teleport and the Fighter can't, that's not NECESSARILY a bad thing. A lot of it depends on implementation. Limitations for 'powerful magic' on casting time, for instance, help address the issue. If the 'fighter' can walk up and beat the wizard before the wizard can create an unscalable impenetrable wall, that's a win for a Fighter. Likewise, if the Wizard can 'zap' the Fighter from more than a mile away with lightning bolts, that's probably an issue...

Magic can still be meaningful and world changing, even if there are limitations, specifically in regard to range/duration/casting time...

[Kaelik]

Most of the rest can be covered by making sure a single wizard can't do EVERYTHING (even if it takes preparing different spells on different days). Scaling back the options that wizards have (without making magic less meaningful) is also an option.

No it fucking can't.

The very first thing you need to do, before anything else, and sure as fuck before you touch the Wizard is you need to rename the class to not be fighter and then let him do cool things within his new theme when not directly in combat.

If you touch the Wizard before you do that, you make stupid fucking 4e (but probably a better combat simulator) where no one can fucking do anything out of combat.

Stop fucking doing that. Stop fucking advocating that. Stop making Fighters, and start making Shadow Lords or some shit who have other shit they can do.

[MGuy]

What a fighter should and shouldn't be able to do should be relative to what you expect any character to be able to do at a certain level. If you don't want the fighter to break your mundane ceiling then you have to reduce the fantastic that every other type of character can do such that, wherever the ceiling is, no one can pass it whether they use magic or not. This goes for the opposition as well. If you want a fighter that makes any sense then wherever you put the breaks on its advancement you also do the same for everything he would fight or otherwise interact with.

People want a mundane character to be able to keep up with the other people. That much is a given. Batman (Robin/Speedy/Artemis for Teen Titans/Young Justice) is living proof that most people will unblinkingly accept that a "normal' man can adventure with Superman, Green Lantern, Martian Man Hunter, Flash, etc. So you either need to give him abilities that make him seem like he can or reduce the awesome of the others.

Personally I'm a proponent (when referring to DnD) of cutting from both ends. As 3E is right now, I feel like the magic should be drawn back and the martial should be given a boost. I think Fighters should be fantastic and Wizards can stand to be much less so. The main point is that any and all characters should have something that can do in and out of combat that don't make them feel ashamed to be with the rest of the group.

[unnamednpc]

Oh for fuck's sake, Kaelik, get the name-stick out of your ass.
Yes, "Fighter" is a bland, stupid name. It's also unevocative, and we could do with something better. But you can't truly believe that changing that name to any of your hokey suggestions will improve anything, anyhow.
Because, a) to anybody outside this forum, a "Shadowlord" is a "Warmindmegadude" is a "Battlezord" is a silly made up name that would elicit a chuckle even from most hardened MtG players. Nobody knows what that's supposed to mean, AND it sounds hokey.
And b), really, I mean really, a class name that evokes more than a one-schtick-role? Go to someone who's not already steeped in DnD knowledge and ask him what a "Rogue" means to him, and I'm certain you won't hear one thirty-fifth of the shit you'd consider standard class-features and part of a Rogues's "role".
And being able to play a "Wizard" was one of the reasons people in the fucking debate-team thought you were weird, because that sounds dumb as all hell.
You say "cleric", and nobody thinks of a platemail wearing warpriest.
And so on.
td,dr: DnD class names are dumb, period. But giving renaming everything to something you'd find on the stat card of a Happy Meal collectible toy will make even less people take our stupid little hobby seriously, AND it won't do a single thing to lessen the disparity between the magic guy and the sword guy.

[deaddmwalking]

A rose by any other name...

Look, Fighter is the name they use in D&D, so for the purpose of this discussion, I think using that name makes sense.

The fact is, the 'fighter', whatever you call it, gets stuck in a very narrow niche that doesn't make sense REGARDLESS of the name.

'Fighters' in literature might be skilled in diplomatic intrigue as well as being master swordsmen. Likewise, there are examples of 'fighters' overpowering magic through either strength of will or actual sword blows.

But regardless of whether you increase the fighter's relative power, you need to look at some of the spells on the highend. The fact that Polar Ray is supposed to be comparable to other spells at the same level is also laughable. A poorly built wizard is pretty lame at high levels, too. But there's really no good reason to give a Wizard 'unlimited spell lists' - obviously they're more constrained than the cleric, but either way, once you get to the point of 'unlimited spells' you're in a pretty broken place. Further, it just encourages resting and choosing new spells for each antcipated obstacle.

If the cleric and wizard have a more closely defined spell list along a particular theme, the game would be better for it. Fizban from Dragonlance only cast 'fire spells' despite being a 'wizard' - having a Pyromancer it's probably more interesting than 'Generalist Wizard #9'.

I don't KNOW that increasing the power-level of the fighter and decreasing the number of spell options for each individual wizard or other caster (note - not wizards in general - I think that there's probably room for a Gate Wizard and a Forcecage Wizard - but probably not for a wizard that does both) would improve the game in two ways.

1) It would help the 'fighter' in particular, and pretty much every other class contribute more meaningfully both in and out of combat without making challenges 'impossible' because the wizard doesn't have the 'anti-that' spell.

2) It would make some of the characters more interesting because they'd be focused on a more clearly defined theme. Just about everyone thinks that a wizard finding a 'skull-themed' way to deal with every problem is more entertaining than a wizard that busts out an army of undead one minute and a meteor shower the next... Themes actually are cool. They also help you know what to expect - the 'randomly generated spell book' gets a little silly.

[Kaelik]

A rose by any other name...

The reason you are changing the name is so that people stop making the same shitty class. We have plenty of experience demonstrating that if you call a class a fighter it will never have any non combat actions and it's combat actions will consist of being super boring, regardless of how effective.

We are changing the name to Shadow Lord and Ninja and Paladin and Ancient Master and Skin Wearer because those imply a specific source of power that grants people shit which will be comparable to what Wizards get because it's not subject to bullshit "But he's Mundane!" whining.

Look, Fighter is the name they use in D&D, so for the purpose of this discussion, I think using that name makes sense.

If what you want is a shitty class with no out of combat abilities and no source of power that allows him to keep up that falls into the same trap that Fighter has fallen into every edition so far, then yes.

If you want a good game, then it makes no sense at all to call any class a Fighter.

The fact is, the 'fighter', whatever you call it, gets stuck in a very narrow niche that doesn't make sense REGARDLESS of the name.

It gets stuck in that niche because that's the only possible place a class called Fighter could ever be. It doesn't get stuck in that niche when it's called the Paladin, Shadow Lord, Ninja, Ancient Master, Skin Wearer precisely because that gives a source of power which drags it outside that niche.

But regardless of whether you increase the fighter's relative power, you need to look at some of the spells on the highend.

...

But there's really no good reason to give a Wizard 'unlimited spell lists' - obviously they're more constrained than the cleric, but either way, once you get to the point of 'unlimited spells' you're in a pretty broken place. Further, it just encourages resting and choosing new spells for each antcipated obstacle.

Those are not even remotely the same problem, and one of them is not a problem. It is not a problem if a class exists who has a actually limitless choice of possible spells they could have learned, but choose a limited subset to learn. IE the Wizard. It is not a problem if there is a class that knows more spells than it can use in one day and has to sit down and make choices about what to use each day, and sometimes changes what it uses.

Those are not fucking problems. Now the Cleric actually is a problem, but literally nothing about the way that Wizards learn and prepare spells is actually a problem.

Now, you do have to look at spells at the high end, but that means you have to nerf Gate, not that you can't have a class that knows "too many" spells.

If the cleric and wizard have a more closely defined spell list along a particular theme, the game would be better for it. Fizban from Dragonlance only cast 'fire spells' despite being a 'wizard' - having a Pyromancer it's probably more interesting than 'Generalist Wizard #9'.

I don't object to a Pyromancer class existing. I write Xmancer classes all the damn time. But those are not incompatible with a generalist spellcaster existing. You have a hate on for generalists. Great, but I have a hate on for every class that doesn't cast spells. That doesn't mean Ninjas and Ancient Master and Blood Warriors shouldn't exist, it means I have a preference.

(note - not wizards in general - I think that there's probably room for a Gate Wizard and a Forcecage Wizard - but probably not for a wizard that does both)

There is room for a Wizard that casts Summon spells and casts Forcecage. There is no room for anyone that casts Gate, because it is not okay to have the ability to pokemon something more powerful than your own level, ever.

1) It would help the 'fighter' in particular, and pretty much every other class contribute more meaningfully both in and out of combat without making challenges 'impossible' because the wizard doesn't have the 'anti-that' spell.

2) It would make some of the characters more interesting because they'd be focused on a more clearly defined theme. Just about everyone thinks that a wizard finding a 'skull-themed' way to deal with every problem is more entertaining than a wizard that busts out an army of undead one minute and a meteor shower the next... Themes actually are cool. They also help you know what to expect - the 'randomly generated spell book' gets a little silly.

Themes are cool, but generalist is a theme. It shouldn't be the only theme, but it is a theme. Preventing people from playing Generalists is not going to make anyone more interesting than the same game with Generalists and Specialists as viable options.

Your anti-that spell thing make no fucking sense. That has literally nothing to do with class or spell design and everything to do with challenge design.

[erik]

Erik you're right give them all superpowers. Clearly, thats the only workable design.

Welcome to the fold, brutha Midnight.

Really it is. Once you reach a certain point in fantasy where you are expected to repeatedly and consistently perform super feats, then you are playing a supernatural game where you must be this tall to enter.

Now your super powers might be due to your individually designed magitech armor, chem and gen augmentation, the psychic protection of your deity and maybe a master craft bolt pistol, but whatever you are, you definitely aren't a mundane anymore.