D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Chaosmancer]

But tagging Evasion with a Ex tag or a Su tag is a solution in search of a problem.

Maybe.

But this is a consistent problem. If I said I wanted my monk to run up a wall, leap and teleport over a 50 ft gap to punch the warlock in the face... most people would say "okay, so you want to play a shadow monk. You know you could fly if you played the new Elemental Monk"

If I wanted my fighter to leap over a 40 ft gap and slice the warlock... well, how am I supposed to justify that, does he have magical leaping powers, why can't I just be satisfied with a man capable of being normal, If I really want to do this, why don't I get magical boots of leaping. Why do I want to pull of such crazy stunts, the game was better when a fighter was a farmboy who picked up a sword and refused to back down...

And this is... rather consistently occurring. So, I can see a potential in finally putting the label on and saying "yes, fighters are supernatural, just like everyone else" and opening that door. I think with the side benefit of actually solidifying the fighter and rogue archetypes a little bit, but giving them more thematic bite at higher levels.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you cannot show in the game where it says that this is a world where fantastical things are just possible by normal people with good physical training, I have no obligation to accept that as anything other than personal preference not supported by 5e.

Seriously, why are so many people against just putting something they clearly believe in in the book?

We aren't against it. We just think it is a little silly to have to state "MAGIC EXISTS" in the books for Dungeons and Dragons.

I mean, seriously, we need to show, in a world where fantastical things are possible by normal people who read and understand the correct books, that it is also possible for them to achieve fantastical things by normal people with the correct physical training... in a game where Monks can run across lava due to their physical training.

You keep acting like this is somehow a giant mystery. The monk text literally states that Ki is a magically energy found inside all living bodies. So here, right here, from the PHB "This energy is an element of the magic that suffuses the multiverse—specifically, the element that flows through living bodies."

Are you alive in the DnD multiverse? Congratulations, you have magic running through your body. Explicitly stated in the PHB. Does the Fighter need to mention it too? Do we need every single class to open "As a living being, and likely a magical creature from mythology like an elf, in a magical world, you have magical potential energy inside you." Of course you are going to say yes, because once you accept that the explanation exists, your entire position crumples.

 

[James Gasik]

Maybe.

But this is a consistent problem. If I said I wanted my monk to run up a wall, leap and teleport over a 50 ft gap to punch the warlock in the face... most people would say "okay, so you want to play a shadow monk. You know you could fly if you played the new Elemental Monk"

If I wanted my fighter to leap over a 40 ft gap and slice the warlock... well, how am I supposed to justify that, does he have magical leaping powers, why can't I just be satisfied with a man capable of being normal, If I really want to do this, why don't I get magical boots of leaping. Why do I want to pull of such crazy stunts, the game was better when a fighter was a farmboy who picked up a sword and refused to back down...

And this is... rather consistently occurring. So, I can see a potential in finally putting the label on and saying "yes, fighters are supernatural, just like everyone else" and opening that door. I think with the side benefit of actually solidifying the fighter and rogue archetypes a little bit, but giving them more thematic bite at higher levels.

But the problem with that is, the people who really really like non-magical warriors will say "that's not D&D" and we'll have the fanbase broken again. They'll flock to some other game, and WotC will panic over losing customers, and we'll get a 7e that will be even more polarized!

 

[Vaalingrade]

But the problem with that is, the people who really really like non-magical warriors will say "that's not D&D" and we'll have the fanbase broken again. They'll flock to some other game, and WotC will panic over losing customers, and we'll get a 7e that will be even more polarized!

A 7e that ignores everyone who wants to police what is and isn't D&D?

PERFECT.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But the problem with that is, the people who really really like non-magical warriors will say "that's not D&D" and we'll have the fanbase broken again. They'll flock to some other game, and WotC will panic over losing customers, and we'll get a 7e that will be even more polarized!

The thing is it's not hard to do non-magical warriors in a magical setting; you make part of their big thing being anti-magic. Little things like advantage on all saving throws vs spells and resistance to all spell damage; there just isn't enough magic through or around them so they are the best at saving and resisting magic. If people want non-magical warriors for themselves they can do that. What they don't get to do is veto everyone else's fighters and rogues being magic.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, I remember the days when Fighters had amazing saving throws at higher levels. I wonder what happened?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah, I remember the days when Fighters had amazing saving throws at higher levels. I wonder what happened?

3.0 decided to normalise all the saving throws and completely missed why AD&D ones worked the way they did.

And in 5e there are classes with amazing saving throws at high levels; monks, paladins, and as a capstone artificers. Fighters aren't on the list.

 

[Raiztt]

It isn't "road rage" though.

See, this is the problem. You think of a Barbarian's Rage as just being angry and out-of-control. That isn't what this is. There was a caption I grabbed years ago that fits this, actually two.

View attachment 358572

View attachment 358573

A barbarian's Rage at 3rd level is intense enough to catch the air around them on fire, or to bridge the realms of the living and the dead. This isn't "I'm so angry I grab my mug and smash it over his head" this is "I'm so angry that despite being 90 lbs soaking wet it took six grown men to hold me down, after I threw the first three off of me and sent two of them to the hospital."

You don't see a barbarian raging and think "he's angry" you think "he's a monster pretending to be human."

Ya I don't allow that when I play D&D so I guess we agree to disagree. We just play very different games and have very different assumptions about, well, what D&D's base assumptions are.

 

[Raiztt]

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is thataway and Call of Cthulhu thataway. Magic with actual chances of blowing up in your face. In fact there are plenty of games - but D&D with its cost-free powerful magic with almost no chance of blowback is not that game.

What does that have to do with what I said? I'm not talking about the consequences of (or lack thereof) using magic?

 

[Neonchameleon]

What does that have to do with what I said? I'm not talking about the consequences of using magic?

No. You're talking about a game where magic has always been a superpower - and a powerful, flexible, and basically cost and risk free one (especially since Unearthed Arcana almost 40 years ago). I'm suggesting games where you can have mundane characters who aren't there to basically hold the coats of the casters much of the time because D&D beyond level 4 is not one of those games.