The basic rules introduction area to be precise. In it there's a section discusses how essential magic is, as below.
Namely, no mention of how useful non-magical characters are.
I mean sure, it does a good job at hyping up how awesome casters are and how much they'll help, but the only mention of non-magical characters is a bit line where it's mentioned how screwed they are without casters keeping them dying horribly.
I'm not gonna say this needs to be cut, but some mention of how these guys are going to get melted without some hard-line guy with a big sword to keep them safe while they're using their magic would be nice.
Nice, on the 5th page of the rules, after an introduction on how the game is generally played, types of encounters, stories to be crafted, you get to a small heading on "The Wonders of Magic." What did you expect in that paragraph? Keep pushin' that rock up the hill, man.
caecafortuna wrote:
I think a kind of magic against magic & steel against steel sentence would be helpful.
To begin with, the paragraph isn't even true.
Healing magic was never needed in D&D. Good as may be to have someone in the party who can heal, it was never a necessity.
But now with the ridiculously high amount of healing everyone has in 5e this is even less true than ever.
But that's a smaller bit of the larger issue.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
I agree it is troublesome, but I'm not sure how much. I had hoped non magical characters and classes would be getting some support and given some capability but passages like these lead me to believe otherwise. They really sound like a return to caster supremacy and all the problems associated with it.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
I'm not on these forums much, but even I know a dead horse when I see one. This has been debated and beaten, healed and beaten, raised from the dead and beaten, wished back into existence and beaten...... You know, that is one advantage of a non-magic group. The horse just stays dead 
Any edition that includes high level casters is a caster supremacy edition.
Unless it's 4th edition, where everybody sucks equally and all that shows the difference between characters is the flavor text of their suck.
Seriously, it's called Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards. It is function of the power of steel versus the power of magic, and has been in D&D since day 1, when the devs looked at Gandalf and said "Now then, how can we give the players a chance to reach that level of power?"
It's all in how the edition handles it.
Let's look at AD&D 2nd edition. When the wizards really started ramping up the power levels, fighters got access to armies. Supposedly this balanced it; and in the hands of creative players it did.
One on one, medium/high level casters typically own. However, it's often how you approach the situation that matters. Not just how you deal with it.
Many years ago I had a thief (level 8) kill a mage (level 12) (again, 2e). How? My character paid a four year old kid to throw stones at the mage constantly. The mage got off one spell. Find the holes in the armour and exploit.
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
SylverFlame wrote:
There's still a vast gulf between not needed and extremely helpful, hah! I suppose if your friendly neighborhood adjudicator is free with healing potions, it becomes less of an issue.
Back to the post: I wouldn't read too much into it. The game assumes magic is prevalent, so it's likely just a way of saying "Hey: here there be magic, and lots of it." Probably would have been wiser to explain it in a way that didn't make it sound like "magic or bust" though.
After reading this thread I'm glad I didn't read it earlier.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
english a sci-fi game might suit you better
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
They don't need to tell you how awesome martial characters are, because that's the baseline assumption. The Fighters are the heroes. The wizards, clerics, bards and paladins are (as is clearly spelled out in that paragraph) support troops for the awesomesness that is the Fighter.
It's like that old story of the child who asks their mother, "Why is there a Mothers day and a Fathers Day but no Childrens Day?". To which the mother replies "Why, because EVERY day is Childrens Day".
EVERY day is Fighter Day!
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Why does the text need to tell you how awesome everyone is? The descriptions for Fighter and Rogue do a great job explaining why they are valuable members of the party.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Zappy wrote:
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Ramzour wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Yes, how great of WotC to tell us right off that martials are just bad and melt without magical assistance so we don't bother playing them right off the bat.
I really don't agree that we have a caster supremancy issue in 5e at this time. I do agree with the OP that the text can leave impressions and expectations regardless of whether a person agrees or not on any caster vs non-caster debates. I don't think it would have been too much to have a section on the wonders of prowess just to proactively demonstrate the intent is not a casters and caddies approach.
Zappy wrote:
I don't think they meant to imply that casters are better than non-casters. I think they were just trying to say that having a diverse and balanced party is a good idea. Everyone has a role to play. If anything, that paragraph made casters sound more like supporting cast; that they help the fighters and rogues win rather than winning all by themselves.
I have to wonder if the people complaining about martial characters being substantially weaker than spellcasters in this thread have actually played D&D Next. Because in my playtest campaign, that did not even slightly turn out to be the case, and the Basic rules don't change the martial classes all that much.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
I am looking forward to seeing the more "complex" fighter subclasses. The Weapon Master was one of the less effective subclasses in the last packet; I'm hoping it's better assembled.
But the Warrior/Champion is one of the most powerful classes in the game, and isn't eclipsed by the spellcasters.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
kalil wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
I never felt caster supremacy was real. I do see folks who complain about it all the time though. Their suggestions would often ruin my games for everyone not just the casters. Their ideology fully triumphed in the only edition of D&D I truly hated. So I'm thankful to hear these same people complaining about 5e. It gives me hope the game moght stand a chance of being a well liked edition.
Emerikol. wrote:
Nicodaudel wrote:
Caster supremacy? Let's take a look at all of the things that casters have lost since 3e:
- Except at the very lowest levels, wizards have far fewer spell slots than they did in 3e or even 2e. A 20th level wizard with a 34 Int in 3e had a total of 57 1st-9th level slots, 66 if a specialist. A 20th level wizard in 5e has a total of 22, plus as many as 1-6 more low level spells from arcane recovery. The specialist wizard in 3e has nearly three times as many spells per day as the 5e wizard! More importantly, the loss of most of these slots are from the higher level spells, which are what matter the most. A 3e wizard could have 5-6 9th level spells per day, while a 5e wizard has only one.
- Most of the best spells now require Concentration, limiting them to using only one at a time, such as inviisbility, fly, stoneskin, haste, etc. These spells can also be easily disrupted by damage now.
- Spells no longer scale automatically with caster level (with the exception of some cantrips). If you want a spell to do more damage, etc., you have to spend a higher level slot.
- Many spells have been significantly reduced in power since their 3e and earlier versions. Dominate Person now lasts for 1 minute at 5th spell level, instead of one day per level, and the caster has to use his own actions to take total control. Teleport is now 7th level instead of 5th, and there is no teleport without error. Fly no longer saves you from falling when it ends. Knock makes an extremely loud noise. There are no more save-or-die spells. I can go on and on.
- Wizards can no longer easily give themselves extra spells by creating scrolls, wands, and other items. Magic items and item creation are now optional rules that are totally at the mercy of the DM, not things that any caster can take as part of the default rules of the game.
- Wizards have less skills and languages than they did in 3e, since they no longer get bonus skills and languages for having a high Intelligence score.
In the meantime, fighters have gained several significant buffs since 3e:
- They have much better skills than they used to. A typical fighter will have four skill proficiencies, which is much better than the measly 2 skill points per level they got in 3e. Plus, they have incredible versatility thanks to remarkable athlete, which gives them half proficiency in everything from acrobatics to stealth.
- They can make extra attacks without a cumulative -5 penalty to hit per attack, and can move between their attacks.
- They can be largely self sufficient thanks to second wind and hit dice healing, and espeically later on with survivor.
- Action surge lets them do incredible amounts of burst damage.
- Monsters no longer have damage reduction, so fighters don't need a golfbag of weapons. A simple +1 weapon (which you're likely to find by around 5th level, except in the very lowest magic or stingiest campaigns) is all it takes for them to penetrate the resistances/immunities of almost every monster in the game. A 20th level fighter with nothing but a basic +1 weapon can still kick alot of ass.
The idea that there is still caster supremacy in 5e is simply ridiculous.
FallingIcicle wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EVERY DAY IS FIGHTER DAY!!
EnglishLanguage wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
The real reason for that section is that basic is written for people who've never played a roleplaying game or even heard of D&D. So they wanted to mention magic so it's not forgotten. A lot of new players may not even realize the effect magic has on the game.
I think it's a bit much to worry over.
FallingIcicle wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
I always had one fighter in every campaign I ever ran. I often had two. They were a very popular class from 1e through 3e.
Yeah I've had some cases of:
"I want to make a fighter."
"Me too, I'll make a fighter."
"Hey guys, think I'm going to make a fighter."
"I'm thinking of rolling a figh... Wait... Shouldn't someone be something else like... rogue or wizard? Party diversity and all that..."
"Oh, ok then, I'll switch to rogue."
DemoMonkey wrote:
This is cuz they get nice things in 5e "bra"! Da da ta da- Fighter for da win man!
Emerikol. wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Storyteller-Zero wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
CVB wrote:
awogaman wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Zappy wrote:
I suppose when one lacks real dragons one must tilt at windmills.
Zappy wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
The quote was virtually all about classes known for being buffers and support roles. I don't know if its so much a plea for casters in general, or trying to promote the Leader classes. Because they do get the short stick as being less fun than, say, a sorcerer or fighter.
Gunthar wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The basic core 4 classes are conceptually the D&D ideal. The 5th class is usually another fighting type. You need some arcane and some divine. You need some combat and some sneaky trap finding.
They are just point out that magic plays a big part in D&D (shocker!) and some classes that use magic is expected. Not required. If though you are playing with total newbs you probably don't want 4 of any class.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Never before have I seen so much rage and vitriol over a few sentences of flavor text.
I think the game they want is one only they would want. The rest of us would flee.
Somehow the comparisons all boil down to fighters without magic. Why would a fighter not use magic items? It's like soldiers saying I don't want a machine gun instead of a musket. Dnd is a world of magic, and magic replaces technology. The text cited by the OP simply reinforces this - it's not saying casters are better, it's saying that magic is essential to every class. So the game contemplates that fighters will have magic items,wow, that doesn't seem to elevate casters to a pedestal. Classes are different, and have different appeal. I've never found the fighter boring and underpowered, even at very high levels. On the other hand, the mages vancian limitations on what spells can be cast are tedious and spell component inventories make playing a wizard an act of accountancy the I.R.S. would be proud of. In the end the wizard is as dependent on magic items as the fighter. But this is part and parcel of high fantasy
As always, people interpret how they want to interpret. I read that passage and didn't at all get the sense that the designers want casters to be supreme. The passage is simply talking about "The Wonders of Magic", and you don't do that by talking about how awesome non-magical characters are.
Here are the main points from the paragraph in question:
1) Adventurers need magic. If you are playing in a low (or no) magic game, disregard. But the default is that there will be magic.
2) Adventurers need healing magic to push on beyond what would normally be possible. Nothing wrong with that. Without extra healing, you need to rest more often.
3) Warriors benefit from magical support. And the best part...read it very carefully (bolded word for emphasis): "Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes." So the implication is that warriors do just fine against average foes, and only "might" be overwhelmed even by powerful foes. These poor, overshadowed warriors sound pretty bad@$$ to me.
4) Wizards and druids bring power and versatility to the group.
If the intent was caster supremacy, you would find it within every section. Even here, in a section about "The Wonders of Magic", the agenda doesn't seem to be "Casters Rule, Warriors Drool!"
Look through the section on Classes. Fighters and Rogues are described just as awesomely as Clerics and Wizards. The intro paragraph describes the Fighter's "mastery of weapons and armor" right alongside the Wizard's "spells".
JC999 wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
CVB wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
I don't care about a sentence of flavor text, although I have noticed the sentence to be true. A group with a cleric and a wizard fares much better than a group with no spellcaster, but that is D&D. I never expected anything different from 5e.
No, what disappoints me is the fact that fighters don't feel special anymore. Nothing really screams "fighter" to me about the whole class. In our recent game, the cleric, rogue, and wizard were all just as capable (if not more so) in melee combat. Sure the fighter had a few more HP and a 1 better AC, but he didn't DO anything unique. There was nothing defining about what I was bringing to the table.
I felt like I would have been a greater benefit to the party playing a wizard, cleric, or rogue because then I could do exactly what I was already doing, but also have a variety of useful tools for combat or non-combat scenarios.
I want fighters to do something unique that really gets the feeling across that I am playing a badass weapon user. The 5e fighter just lacks in that department.
Lawolf wrote:
If inferior classes don't get played then the fighter is the best class in the game. It is likely the most widely played class in my experience. It's true for 3e too.
So you will have to give up one of your theories. My suggestion is you give up the idea that popularity is an indicator of power. Better to cling to the notion of caster supremacy since a lot of people are really invested in that idea.
JC999 wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Arithezoo wrote:
autolycus wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Zappy wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Zappy wrote:
The fighter class often tops class popularity, even when seen to be a choice-poor class that's underpowered at higher levels.
The non-caster classes generally are pretty popular. Afterall, they represent most of the hero or main-character archetypes in fantasy fiction - casters,until the rise of Harry Potter & urban fantasy, generally being villains & mcguffins.
That's what makes them such good trap choices. Because they /seem/ good and appeal to players but don't deliver. They may even start off strong, then get overshadowed as the campaign progresses.
Conversely, the Cleric, who has too important and protected niches (healing and turning undead), /and/ has the armored toughness of the fighter, /and/ a number of spells/slots comparable to the wizard, doesn't so well in such polls. The cleric archetype just doen't make much of an impression on the fantasy genre (like other casters, just as an 'evil priest' villain or pious support character), and bringing religion, even fantasy religion into the game does make some folks uncomfortable.
Now, we don't know how bad it's really going to be until we see the PH. The weaponmaster 'complex' fighter could rock or could be even less impressive than in the playtest. But, for the moment, we have a game that punished players for choosing popular archetypes and rewards them for putting up with playing a less popular one.
There's an inside-out logic to that. The party /needs/ a Cleric, it doesn't absolutely need the fighter, and will probably get a few players who want fighters, anyway, so you give some 'encentive' (greater power) to play the Cleric. It doesn't work because the better solution would be to just make the cleric less necessary, and split the fighter up into more interesting/differentiated classes, so the majority of archetypal heroes no longer point at a single, arguably sub-standard class, and no one's forced into an archetype they don't want to RP.
Sub-classes could go a ways towards breaking up the fighter's lock on archetypes, but whole classes would be better. Similarly, overnight & short rest healing take some preasure of the cleric, but more could be done - particularly more classes able to fill in for the Cleric's vital healing abilities (which of course requires dumping niche protection).
Emerikol. wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
The page formatting bugs me the most. Seriously. If you were to print it, as-is, the page numbers would be in the gutter (middle of the open book.) I'm fine with no cover, just title page. And I'm fine with it being page 1. But page 2 has the page number on the right-hand side, that's a no-no in any school of book design.
The easiest fix would take less than a minute in InDesign, by just starting page 1 with the Introduction/Worlds of Adventure page, and leave the title-page with no page number. Since it's a living document, and there are no page references (only chapters) it should be an easy fix. I'd fix it for free for them if they I could.
I hope they fix it sooner than later, I'm not going to waste a tree with it like this.
Roger E Moore wrote an interesting article in Dragon back in the day titled Characters Are What You Are In The Dark, and he talked about not liking to play magic-users, could never figure out which spell to cast at what time and what-have-you, so much preferred his simple Fighter-type.
This thread is still a steaming pile of troll dung, and the usual suspects are like lampreys.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Alex_ wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Zappy wrote:
This is a problem in many games ("this" refering back to the original point of the thread). How often do you hear people spouting the virtues of the linemen in american football? Never. It's all about the backs. What good would a king be if he had no lords or ladies to take care of the far reaches of the kingdoms? And what good would they be if they didn't have soldiers to enforce the rules? This is not a new problem. Everyone gravitates towards spouting the virtues of the flashiest and easiest walks of life and ignore the nitty gritty aspects that make the other side possible.
Betzlalel wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
CVB wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
CVB wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
I've never played a caster. People think I don't exist? I understand that some people really want the in depth mechanics of playing a wizard or druid, and that's why they're in the game. People like me who don't want to mess with spell lists and memorization are there to be the party's fighters and rogues. I'll take daggers over a spellbook any day.
JC999 wrote:
JC999 wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
JC999 wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
@OP I suppose its good that they went ahead and said it. Its been true for every edition, even 4e. It is funny that they are saying it now though because I believe it is far less true now than in prior editions.