| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I won't cover combat as, well, you all have that securely in line ;p
My issue with the disparity is in narrative power. Namely, casters have all of it.
The very false thought that characters need to be divided between magical and non-magical is one that's not found in mythology. Like, at all. You read Greek myths, or Japanese myths, or Indian myths, or Middle Ages European myths. You read Beowulf or Sir Roland or anything from the Three Kingdoms era. What do you see?
There is no divide. The "martial" characters are not mundane in the slightest. They've had training from spirits, or they've been blessed by god, or they have the blood of gods, or they're just so incredibly badass that reality need not apply.
The problem, then, is that this divide exists in the first place - one not found in mythology, and indeed one not found in fiction, either. There are no mundane classes and magical classes in the vast majority of fiction. What there is, are protagonists/antagonists and non...tagonists. There's probably an official word for that somewhere. Take your standard Conan book - wizards aren't just charming him with ease and forcecaging and fireballing. In fact, 99% of the time, a wizard in a Conan book does three things. 1) Act creepy, evil, and mysogynistic in a hilariously racist fashion because they're probably characterized as being non-white. 2) Try to cast a spell on Conan. It fails. 3) Conan kills them by throwing a chair at them. Now, his minions get slaughtered left and right by Conan, but Conans unnamed allies typically get slaughtered in turn by the bad guy of the week.
That's the divide, then - Major Character vs Non-Major Character.
So, my statement is this: the key to fixing this is to make D&D a fantasy game.
See, in fantasy, there aren't mundane classes and magical classes, there's just "fantasy characters." Conan can survive crucifixion and shrugs off horrible evil enchantments and kills dudes with a thrown chair. Beowulf rips the arm off of Grendel then dives underwater for hours on end to find a lair. Everyone that has a name and is involved in the Three Kingdoms period does something over the top and insanely awesome.
Look at the monk. When you think of monks, you typically think of wuxia and wire fighting and anime and etc, etc, etc. But D&D monks don't get any of this because they have to stay "mortal." The wizard is better at wire fighting then the monk is.
When you look at many, many forms of fiction and mythology, you see great and powerful wars lead by mighty and charismatic leaders and death defying warriors who can sunder mountains or cleave apart armies single handedly. But while level 20 wizards get things like stopping time or creating their own demiplane fighters get...
...Oh, they get +1 attack and can do some better damage.
That's the difference. Wizards have all the narrative power. They can create or destroy continents at will. Fighters just stand there and full attack. It's why people always get confused by the Tier system - the tiers aren't about in combat ability, it's about your ability to shape the setting as a whole.
In the magic/mundane divide, only one side has full narrative power; to put it in other terms, one side can abduct the train conducter, derail the train, and then suddenly make it fly away to a magical land of whimsy, while the other class can do nothing more then sit and watch the scenary go by.
It's why people always get confused by the Tier system - the tiers aren't about in combat ability
+1
|
My issue with the disparity is in narrative power. Namely, casters have all of it.
-1
The very false thought that characters need to be divided between magical and non-magical is one that's not found in mythology. Like, at all. You read Greek myths, or Japanese myths, or Indian myths, or Middle Ages European myths.
-1, not every style of play is mythic super-heroic; actually I would guess that most are not. In other words most people do not want to play Hercules in a party of adventures. Not saying that this isn't a viable request, just saying that this was never the intention of 99% of all the printed D&D product out there (exception Basic-Immortals D&D) nor did it ever fit in their game design and supporting products.
When you look at many, many forms of fiction and mythology, you see great and powerful wars lead by mighty and charismatic leaders and death defying warriors who can sunder mountains or cleave apart armies single handedly.
-1, again - that has never ever been the design goal of D&D.
At the beginning of the thread, the OP asked folks to respond simply with a +1 or -1 to someone else's post, rather than quote and respond. He was looking for individuals' takes on the issue without argument.
Of course no one can enforce that, but the reason for a +1 or -1 without comment is because that's what the OP asked for.
Sorry is good enough if we can keep on-topic. I'm trying like hell not to editorialize or over-police the thread. Short comments are okay — it's the spirit of the thing. We're reducing comments so that we keep fresh opinions coming in... and when it works, it seems to work. ;)
We now return you to (hopefully) original analysis and constructive solutions.
Removed some posts and their replies.
I can see that there is a disparity that is more pronounced with certain styles of play. Even in my games, where the casters and non-casters are on relatively equal footing, I can see that magic is better than non-magic in many circumstances. What makes challenging the casters difficult isn't that they are more powerful. It's that they can do so much more in a single round than non-casters. Even the classes that find a way to get pounce or something similar (barbarian with greater beast totem at level 10, monk of the four winds with aspect of the tiger at level 17, and mobile fighter at level 11), the casters are doing so much more long before that. Starting at level 6, the non-casters start to see a drop in actions while the casters see a boost in power.
So how would I address it if I felt the need? A simple way would be to have the caster make a Concentration check. If he takes a 5 foot step then no check is needed. If he moves up to 1/3 speed then it counts as Vigorous motion. If he moves up to 2/3 speed then it counts as Violent motion. If he moves up to full speed then it counts as Extremely Violent motion.
Someone else can determine if those would be enough to hinder the caster. I just like to use the rules that are already in place and make simple adjustments. Concentration checks are already in place with DCs so I went with that.
Another thing that would help would be to increase the number of attacks the non-casters can make. They can make a full attack if they move less than half speed. For every 5 points of BAB, they can move an additional 5 feet to his maximum speed. So a 6th level human fighter with movement 20 can move 15 feet and still get a full attack. By level 15 with a movement of 30, he can move the full 30 feet and still get a full attack. Basically the math breaks down as (Speed/2 + BAB) is the distance he can move and full attack. A human monk at level 20 can move [((30+60)/2) + (15)] 60 feet and still flurry.
Note that these aren't fully thought out so there are flaws with them. Like I didn't take into account charging or any special movement. I also don't know if both should be implemented or one or neither. Just tossing some ideas out there.
So how would I address it if I felt the need? A simple way would be to have the caster make a Concentration check. If he takes a 5 foot step then no check is needed. If he moves up to 1/3 speed then it counts as Vigorous motion. If he moves up to 2/3 speed then it counts as Violent motion. If he moves up to full speed then it counts as Extremely Violent motion.
Someone else can determine if those would be enough to hinder the caster. I just like to use the rules that are already in place and make simple adjustments. Concentration checks are already in place with DCs so I went with that.
+1. Excellent idea and excellent reasoning. Curious about the math, maybe someone could spinoff?