Sacred Cows in D&D

Eh, gotta disagree there. Clerics are full-on casters, whereas Paladins are, at their core, knights (or, at least, armored fighters) whose martial prowess is enhanced by divine blessing. It's a bit of a stretch, but think of the Old Testament. You've got guys like David and Joshua who were exceptionally skilled at war thanks to God's blessing, and then you've got guys like Moses and Elijah who didn't so much fight as act as God's agents through whom He performed miracles.

For me, anyway, that's how I see the difference between a Paladin and a Cleric.

I don't think its built up that much baggage. It broke the mould with 4e, for better or worse, and then reshaped itself into something more familiar with 5e.

Spell lists and how magic functions in general may be one of the holdovers, which is why 5e still sometimes gets the LFQW complaint levelled at it.

Being from a religious family I see paladins and clerics as having completely different purposes.
A cleric is one who studies the deities works and preaches it in a temple and does community service.
A paladin is more like a divine tool, an agent dedicated to that deity, a divine champion. A paladin was given a mission and works on behalf of that deity in matters that requires killing/hunting stuff.

A cleric may travel to a distant city with the purpose of preaching to the people there of building a temple.

A paladin will travel around the continent, hunting down demons, searching for a lost relic or doing some other kind of mission in the name of X deity.

Grappling.

Only because it seems to be the one form of fighting no RPG can get quite right.

The problem that you're not getting is that "wizard with highly limited spell schools and literally nothing else" isn't a compelling class. There is a reason that you saw Dread Necro and Beguiler and Warmage, what with their tons of class features that helped them develop into good classes, instead of that.

I like Exalted grappling

I think they should renaming all mentions of Grappling/Clinches/whatever into "Wrasslin"

Grappling is boring and quite limited in a fantasy setting where you wear armor and fight monsters with a group. Grappling is only useful in one on one engagements, when you're not encumbered by armor and against someone who is around the same size as you.

I'm not surprised that no one bothered to make it actually work in a ttrpg.

One of the problems with the general class balance that I think is *utterly unavoidable* no matter what else they do, until they change their mindset, is this idea of certain classes being useless in certain kinds of scenes.

Combat, Social, Dungeon-Crawling and Wilderness with less common others seem to be the main categories of D&D situations requiring problem-solving using character abilities.

Even putting aside specific balance concerns of say Fighter vs Wizard on number of situations you're useful for, it doesn't line up with the heroic fantasy genre at all that the Fighter does nothing except in a fight. If you read a fantasy novel, everyone is able to do different things that are useful or progress the story in any type of scenario. Social scenes can involve anybody. Combat scenes involve everybody. Everybody is getting their own kind of focus while they adventure.

It's also not fucking FUN. If your issue with this is that it genericizes classes - because there's only one way to participate in a type of scene and if everyone has it then they're all the same - then the design problem should be addressing that there aren't enough *ways* to participate in that type of scene. Make those ways.

Prohibiting a wizard from casting spells of the two schools that antagonize the two schools he focused in is hardly limiting at all.

>keeping the exact same feature distribution among classes and sticking to the established roster
>classes as unsplittable bundle of features
>perhaps classes in general
>hiding away tons of little mechanics in supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities and feats and working around their own magic system with those
>the six attributes should at least be on the table as changeable
>prestige classes with jet more little mechanics strewn throughout

Refusing to give all classes a set of exchangeable abilities that are expanded with supplements.

Bullshit. If someone picked in such a way that Conjuration and Transmutation were banned they'd be a total gimp compared to anyone who had them.

That's a murderhobo's way of thinking.

>heroic fantasy genre
There's a ton of baggage from the fact that D&D was originally built around pulp fiction rather than heroic fantasy, but people try to shoehorn it into heroic fantasy when many of its mechanics imply the opposite.

Also, removing gold-for-xp removed a key balance lever. Similarly removing some of the wargaming elements like morale and reaction tables hurt D&D by making everyone tend to fight to the death, and the only guaranteed way to get XP becoming combat.

No, it's the way of thinking of anyone who isn't an idiot. Conjuration and Transmutation aren't just overpowered in combat, but they have immense noncombat use too.

This is how I know you don't play much D&D if you bitch about blasting spells

Don' you see never seeing divination, enchantment, illusion or necromancy spells will make wizards more interesting somehow

All the other schools are basically useless, then?

I'm tired of endlessly discussing balance with retards that play ttrpgs like they're playing WoW.

Magic seems to upset a lot of peoples games in 3.5, a lot of it is shit dm'ing, but there are some issues with it.

Go back to the 2ed, and 99% of those issues are gone. (Using the saving throws for 2ed.)

Get rid of a bunch of sup spell books, and that takes care of the other 1%.

I always wondered why there wasn't anything in the books about morale. It seems like a logical thing to include and design around. I often have failing groups of enemies break and flee in games I run in WFRP, and narrative it's much more sensible.

Do you just not understand what Conjuration and Transmutation have?

Wish is rarely efficient for pcs to use, and gate is actually fairly situational spell, really, not something that you need to keep in pocket.

5e has proved that martials being cucks compared to casters is the ultimate sacred cow.

Using 2E saving throws in 3.5 won't stop someone from using spells that ignore you as a target or ignore your saves entirely. If you don't have FoM, there's really nothing you can do if a Wizard decides to drop a Solid Fog on you.

>Get rid of a bunch of sup spell books
The 3.5 supplements only added to the core problem, not created it, and many times, offered alternatives to the more powerful spells in core, user.

>Solid Fog
>Get rid of a bunch of sup spell books,

>Grappling
>Only when not encumbered by armour

No

Solid Fog is core you fucking mouthbreather.

And, rework the fucking stupid item/scroll creating shit.

Make it like 2nd edition.

Did I mention spell components?

3.5, made wizards easy as hell. Like training wheels for that class.

And go back to the early editions art work.

Holy fuck the new shit is fucking horrible.

>Did I mention spell components?
Read: Suck cock if you're an evoker but be untouched if you use conjurations, because apparently butter, animal hooves, and peas are difficult to get. Oh, and divine spellcasters ignore all of this bullshit anyways so you did nothing to them.

What kind of grappling are you talking about?

Meh. 3.5 was fucked up all over.

I ain't even going to try to defend it.

Different user, but grappling in armor has been a part of every military that used armor around the world since people found that throwing a dude to the ground makes it easier to stick something sharp in them.
Fucking sumo wrestling is descended from battlefield grappling mainly involving hip throws and palm rushes to knock armored men over.

He does, but have you ever tried 'gimping' yourself and not using them?
Your spell selection becomes more boring and limited, you have to dig and use uncommon spells, but the power is still there.

So let's stop, because 3.5 was not the end all of the game.
As an earlier user said, one of the biggest offending sacred cows, maybe the biggest, is the separation of what magic can do, and what can't be done without magic. Even in 2e and 4e, where fighters were incredibly solid warriors, then could rarely achieve anything outside of that whilst mages had both combat and the variety of things outside of it in easy repertoire.
Requiring magic for built in versatility is a problem that commonly strikes D&D and Shadowrun.

I call that tackling. Grappling to me is immobilizing someone or pinning them in the ground.

>trying to find different, unconventional solutions to problems instead of just killing your way through every challenge
>boring

Utility has always been the MU's gimmick. They can solve a problem with a wave of a hand, but they can only do it so often - and you need to pick right.

No, it isn't. You become subject to SR all the time because Conjuration and Transmutation's buffs were what let you get around it, you lose most of your no-save spells, lose most good buffs, lose the entire Polymorph line, including Shapechange and Alter Self, and lose core make-beatstick-better spells like Enlarge Person and Haste.

>I call that tackling. Grappling to me is immobilizing someone or pinning them in the ground.
You have an odd definition of what grappling is, user.

3d6 stats. They are an obsolete legacy mechanism that aren't used for anything since third edition. We don't roll against stat, we roll and modify the result by stat determined amount. Instead of writing down 14/+2 we should cut off the bloat and just write +2, that's your stat.

Mages have versatility. So? Nothing wrong with that on the prima facia.

The problem comes when they have unlimited versatility. Via scrolls, items, and far too many spells per day.

Example: A mage can fly over a canyon that takes the fighter 2 days to walk around.

The mage can blast open a door that a thief would have to struggle with to pick, or the barb would have to beat on.

The mage can cast AoE's that hamper/stun/kill enemies, that would take the fighter a dozen rounds to do.

But, if the mage spends all his slots on knocking open doors, he runs out of spells before he can cast that fly spell. So there is a limit to his power.
Meanwhile, the fighter swings, and swings again, and swings some more. And......that's it as far as his "versatility" goes. Which seems like it would suck, but he also gets increased armor, better weapons, HP, and bab. It doesn't increase his versatility, but it does increase his survival. So a case could be made, that the fighters survival ability is his versatility?

>just write +2, that's your stat.

That would take some of the creativity out of things.

Terminology. You don't even think about it after awhile, but Armor Class and Spell Slot are stupid terms.
Numerology. We need not be beholden to ye olde 20 level standard progression and hit die systems.

And you are sorta reinforcing what I am saying, that there is an artificial divide created primarily from D&D's war game roots.
Fighters consistently have lesser skill sets and less overall survival assets than would be expected from a traveling mercenary sort, and Gygax could tell you a lot about how the "limits" on mages stopped his places from going roughhouse on his games.
In actual practice, a party isn't going to push on if the members of it can't contribute, so even if the mage blows all their spells definitively aiding the party, the party will stop to allow them to recover. For all the sword swinging the fighter can do, he can't win the battle alone, so his ability to do a single thing without limit is actually limited.

>Similarly removing some of the wargaming elements like morale and reaction tables hurt D&D by making everyone tend to fight to the death, and the only guaranteed way to get XP becoming combat.

Aren't there some rules about doling out XP for accomplishing certain feats? It's all up to the DM's discretion but I imagine, like, "Congratulations on successfully solving the murder on the Orient Express, all of you get 800 XP" can't be too unheard of.

>the party will stop to allow them to recover.
If there's time.

Once that mage is out of spells, or has nothing left that will help at that moment. He's fucked. He'll be happy there's a fighter nearby at that point.

Also, we're sorta assuming that mages are all high level. I'll agree that by 6th or 7th level, they far outshine most other classes. At low levels though, they're pretty friggen weak.

>Once that mage is out of spells, or has nothing left that will help at that moment. He's fucked. He'll be happy there's a fighter nearby at that point.
This also happens to assume the pc is throwing spells out every round. I generally do not assume complete foolishness on part of the player, any argument can be proven if the default assumption is idiocy from start to finish.

There are. Some dm's do just that.
I agree with the other user though, that removing moral and reaction tables hurt the game.

Also, thieves earning exp from stealing, mages for casting spells/making items, fighters for fighting, etc. Plus certain classes required MORE exp to level up.

They really fucked the system up.

Frankly I don't see how '14' would be more creative than '+2'.

>This also happens to assume the pc is throwing spells out every round.

Depends on the circumstances.

3 encounters in the dungeon. The mage casts how many spells?

It would depend on each situation. Which makes this almost silly to debate when we're talking "in general".

What's the mage doing when not casting? shooting a crossbow? swinging a staff? Being useless? Reading a poem?

>In actual practice, a party isn't going to push on if the members of it can't contribute
Also keep in mind that for some reason the base expectations are that, no matter your level, you get about four encounters in an adventuring day that take about 2-3 rounds.
Good GMs can expand that and make it more taxing and interesting, but that's not something you should expect. If anything, they tend to err on the low end so as not to risk dangerously overextending of party resources.
The problem here is the wizard is stacking up spell slots, spells, magic items, and whatever else, while the fighter is only ever given enough hit points and fightan' power to deal with those ten rounds. He's stuck playing the same game he was at level 1. Part of the problem is that player agency in building characters and optimizing has grown while the challenges they have to overcome have been pretty much static, but there are really problems down to the core mechanics.

They got rid of the magic item golf bag but they failed to get rid of the magic spellbook while they were at it.

Half the spells in the PHB shouldn't be in the list to begin with and what is there is available to any spellcaster on level up for free. No effort required. That smacks of "wealth by level."

>Once that mage is out of spells
Yeah, then he has to get by using just the scrolls and wands he has hoarded. While a Fighter at low hit points is just fucked, end of story. A Wizard can push much farther than the martials can keep up and contribute.

Meh. Taste then, I guess.

Just +2 as a stat, looks stupid to me. I wouldn't dick with it.

You're assuming a lot.

>mages having wands
>mages having scrolls
>mages having a hoard of both
>fighter has NOTHING

Ability scores are the one that trip me up every time I try to design a better D&D. (As opposed to just a good RPG.)

Basically everywhere you can apply an ability score, it's to modify something that's already determined by some other statistic. You could just give everyone a bit more points worth of those other stats and all the math would work out the same. Skills are the obvious example, but it applies to things like saving throw bonuses and base attack bonuses too.

It's not just that it's a redundant thing that offends my design sensibilities (though it totally is that too). It ends up having wide-reaching effects on what character archetypes are effective, so anything that shares a prime ability score works and everything else doesn't, and bard/paladin works better than cleric/paladin even though nobody actually chose that as a design decision. And because that doesn't always do the right thing, there are various feats and class features to patch around things having the wrong ability score, adding even more stuff we don't need to fix that.

If you just dropped the ability scores and relied more on skills and class features, the whole thing would come together more easily. But it might not be D&D anymore.

(The other solution would be to use ability score rolls for almost everything and drop things like skills. That's also a valid solution, but it's simple enough that someone has probably already done your exact preferred way to do it.)

>Half the spells in the PHB shouldn't be in the list to begin with and what is there is available to any spellcaster on level up for free. No effort required.

Yep. Instead of making the player roll to learn the spell. And limiting the spells per day.

>If you just dropped the ability scores and relied more on skills and class features, the whole thing would come together more easily. But it might not be D&D anymore.

Ability scores give the players a feeling of uniqueness, beyond just a "normal thief", or "standard fighter".

>If there's time.
I'd bet money that 99.99% of all games that have been run since the dawn of the hobby did not involve the party being on the clock.
>He's fucked.
Everyone's fucked because they can't do their jobs without the mage's help.
>He'll be happy there's a fighter nearby
Fighter's probably not going to cut the mustard on his own, and if the mage gets in trouble the fighter has no tools to get him out of it.
>At low levels though, they're pretty friggen weak.
Arguably at low levels they're at their worst, because they have encounter-ending shit like sleep while other classes have 16 hit points, d20+3 to hit and do 1d6+2 damage once per round.

That's why I specified guaranteed. IIRC, 5e gives some more guidance for this style of XP allocation

Those are all quite reasonable assumptions.

>I'd bet money that 99.99% of all games that have been run since the dawn of the hobby did not involve the party being on the clock.

You have to fight your way into the kobolds lair. It's not timed, but you either run in, cast a couple spells and then leave. You don't sit up camp in the first room, wait 8 hours and then go on.
>Everyone's fucked because they can't do their jobs without the mage's help

there are tons of games that have NO mage in it. So you're out of your mind there.
>encounter-ending shit like sleep

Limited to HD, and Saving throws. Also, sleep can be stopped by a turn in the hallway or terrain. Or distance. It's not encounter ending unless the DM groups up the bad guys, and allows them to just stand there and wait on the mage to cast.

What good is fighter's gear if he's at too low hp to use it? Honestly now, who you'd rather have by your side when running away from enemies: a wizard having used all his spell slots or a fighter with 3 hp?

Hugeass spellists. Realism attempts when describing skill difficulties

None of them are reasonable user.

Unless you're talking about a specific version of d&d.

But in general, if the party's mage has a horde of wands, then the fighter likely has potions, and other items.

>there are tons of games
We are in a D&D thread talking about D&D.

And i've played in dozens of them where no one played a mage.

Skill lameness due to unwelcome "realism" is what upholds caster supremacy as impossible to dethrone, together with Address both to some reasonable degree and you make a way more fun game IMO.

Healing is fucking BORING

I love playing healer in a wide variety of video games. Shooters, MMOs, turn-based strategy, RTS (commanding forces with healers for mad value), hell -- even MOBAs. Dwarf fortress, setting up my hospital? Hell yeah. Memorizing all the surgeries and medical chemistry in Space Station 13? Killer fun.

Give me a system where I'm not gnawing my fingers off in boredom for picking healer.

>the weirder spells being inaccessible without finding them within the setting
How do you think wizards get new spells, user? Do you think they just appear in the wizard's brain unbidden?

>I love playing healer in a wide variety of video games
That's your problem.

Mate it's a legitimate concern. There should be a variety of roles to fill and filling those roles should be fun. Healing, as a dedicated role, is not as core to the game as combat and casting, so it always feels like an afterthought that got shoved partway below the surface for how useful and popular it is, but never got to be a building block like hitting people with a sword or fireball.
Emulating video games is a bad idea, but ignoring the lessons they can teach in game design and falling decades behind is also foolish.

I dunno man, there are a lot of things that can make healing fun -- in single player and multiplayer.

It doesn't JUST have to be clutch timings -- rewarding knowledge of mechanics can be just as satisfying.

Too often healing in tabletop is just "I move over next to him and cure moderate wounds" -- meanwhile your Fighter is at least getting to do flanking and funneling and shit, to say nothing of what the Mage is cooking up.

>Healing, as a dedicated role,
It's not meant to be a dedicated role you dingus. There's a reason the cleric comes with anti-undead fuckery and okay combat abilities as standard.

It has proven undeniable at this point that there is demand for it as a dedicated role. Perhaps the sacred cow to let go of is that healing can't ever be interesting enough to stand on its own?

>It has proven undeniable at this point that there is demand for it as a dedicated role.
No it fucking hasn't. Pure healers, like Divination-specialist wizards, should be NPC-only.

I think this is definitely a winner, the way you naturally spring to defend it so rabidly proves its sacred cow status.

If you don't have combat abilities, what are you doing in a dungeon? Go wait at the surface with the rest of the NPCs.

Healing is a party of combat.
And even then a dedicated healer can hurt things, Channeling to do both at once is an example of how to make healing interesting and fun.

>Channeling to do both at once is an example of how to make healing interesting and fun.
But you can already do that you retard. The Cure X Wounds family are invertable.

In fantasy age you pick arcana like domains, you only start with two and barely get any. You advance in them slowly. It'd be nice to have more spells, but it's kind of nice to be restricted, too.

What ideas do you have to make it more fun with p'n'p? Doen' have to be related/fittable to DnD, just throw in some ideas.

I'm asking because I pondered over the same question for homebrew. Only thing I came up with until now:
- make healing less frequent, so casting a "simple" healing spell gains more importance
- make all simple healing effects indirect (like lifelink from MtG) or a regen effect with high duration at most, so the priest still can do something else

>If you read a fantasy novel, everyone is able to do different things that are useful or progress the story in any type of scenario
No. Not even close. Do you exclusively read badly written YA shit?

In other games spell schools usually don't vary in power between "do nearly anything you could want a spell to do, get around any defense" and "90% of this spell school is cockblocked by a single effect".

I'm going to let you in on one of the bits of D&D that's been largely covered up by 40 years of misunderstandings: Combat is a fail state. Ideally, you get in, get the loot, and get out fighting as little shit as possible. By making healing fun, you are encouraging the fail state.

Ability scores and ability modifiers being different things.

Well then they sure failed by making the fail state the most versatile and expansive part of the game. Like shit son thats basic game design. You dont make the fail state fun

>But you can already do that you retard.
That's what I typed. Channeling. As in Channel Positive Energy. Used in Pathfinder to either harm Undead or heal the living around the Cleric. Or Channel Divinity. In 5e it's another choose the effect ability that can be used to Turn Undead, or whatever your domain gives it. Unsurprisingly, the Life domain gives an area healing effect.
Cure Wounds having the cool double feature going for it as well is what one might call "another example".