EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
So, to summarize here:
"Casters are objectively more powerful than non-casters." "I have never had a problem [with this]."
You aren't denying anything. All you're saying is that the non-casters have capitulated.
D&D (2024) Removing Concentration
- Thread starter Xeviat
- Start date
"Casters are objectively more powerful than non-casters." "I have never had a problem [with this]."
You aren't denying anything. All you're saying is that the non-casters have capitulated.
I would say people play non-casters because that is what they want to play. I would not call that capitulation. They don't want to play the classes that are the most powerful.
Changing the rules to give non-casters some supernatural powers for no reason or alternatively taking that away from full casters would seem to be capitulation to me. It would be capitulation to what I believe to be a very small minority of players that want to play characters that are extremely powerful but for some reason refuse to play the classes that are designed and intended for that role.
It is a problem if you have a DM that won't let you play a Wizard or Sorcerer and who takes away your choice to play a more powerful class. If the DM is forcig you to play a weak class that is a problem. On the other hand, if the DM isn't restricting you, then just play a caster if being top dog is what is important to you and if that is what you get joy out of. That is part of what those full caster classes are for and when you boost other classes you take that away and take away that choice for a lot of players IMO.
If you are concerned about being overshadowed, why would you choose to play a Fighter or Rogue when the game design makes it so those classes can be overshadowed?
Last edited:
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Your group chooses to play that way. They say, "Ah. They're never going to make martials as strong as casters, nor casters as weak as martials."
Not everyone does. That's literally the reason there's a problem. The above is acceptance of the difference, not proof that no issue exists. It very very much seems to me that you are projecting your own positive attitude toward this difference onto everyone else, without any reason other than "well my group does that."
Now you're smearing positions you don't agree with. Please stop.
Yes, because taking away phenomenal godlike power so that everyone can actually play on an even playing field is such a capitulation. It's such an onerous burden to think that a teamwork-based game should not force people to choose between "martial themed and weak" vs "spellcasting themed and strong."
Seriously. This isn't what you keep trying to paint it as. Most people have not accepted, and do not accept, that caster = very powerful and martial = not very powerful.
Ah, good, so you have the survey data which proves this?
Because I'd love to see it. Until you can provide it, this is you falsely presenting your opinion as though it were shared by 99% of people, not an extreme minority viewpoint NOT widely shared.
It's not a matter of being "top dog" and I'm sick and tired of this slander from you. Please stop.
It's a matter of wanting to be an EQUAL PLAYER. Of wanting to be PEERS with others, not casters-and-caddies.
If someone only gets joy out of playing D&D because it lets them be far more powerful than several of their fellow-players, I'm not at all unhappy telling them their need to be "top dog", to keep their martial-enjoying friends beneath their heels, isn't a fantasy welcome in D&D. That's a hurtful fantasy; it delights in denigrating others, in forcing them to be lesser so the fantasizer can be greater. That's not acceptable in general, let alone in a specifically cooperative game.
Because I don't believe it does do that.
Because I think the designers explicitly tell us, over and over and over again, that they AREN'T supposed to be that way. That they keep saying, over and over and over again, that places where such disparities exist are a problem, a mistake, or a faulty interpretation, and not only can be altered, they should be altered.
It's you--and, as far as I can tell, only you--that keeps asserting that this is 100% intended. It's you--and, as far as I can tell, only you--who thinks that it's somehow good for a cooperative game to make some people "top dog" and other people their weak lackeys.
But, since you seem so supremely confident of this position: Prove it! Show that this is the designers' intent. That should be easy to do; they talk about their design intent all the time. Show me the place--any place--where they say "Casters are just more powerful than non-casters." Show me where they actually wrote down that that's how things have always been intended to be, and that players should just know that choosing to play a martial character means choosing to be weak. I eagerly look forward to your example. Or, rather, examples, since your supreme confidence indicates this should be a cinch, something you can prove with multiple examples, though I would accept it if you could cite even a single one.
leozg
DM
So if I want to do meaningful things without being overshadowed I can't roleplay a martial, I have to choose a caster? Nice game design.
Horwath
Legend
I'm considering changing second wind and it's effect on skill because of this reason.
I do not want fighter to outskill a rogue in possible High DCs at any tier level.
but I do not want Second wind to be useless in roleplay/exploration.
and I kind of like rogues reliable talent
so one solution is,
when fighter fails an ability check, by using second wind d20 roll will be treated as 15.
this pretty much on average is similar to adding d10 to d20 roll(16 vs 15) but bonus is, that is reliable.
15 will not outshine rogue in most situations and it avoids not getting anything out of Second wind by rolling "1".
if treating the roll as 15 still fails the check, usage is not consumed.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
I would say that people decide on a character concept (such as "Ice-mage", "Warrior with huge axe", "Bounty hunter with crossbow and wolfhound companion") first.
Very few decide on the level of character power they want, ;come up with a concept. Even optimisers will often come up with a concept to optimise first.
Character power should be independent of concept, and ideally there should be very little variation in overall power and engagement level between characters. (Although obviously there should be a lot of variation on the actual situations and manifestations of the capabilities of each.)
Did you just make this up yourself and attribute it to those you are disagreeing with, or do I have someone on ignore? Who is asking for non-casters to get "supernatural powers"?
You can give non-casters additional interesting and effective non-combat capabilities without them having to be supernatural.
As mentioned before, I think very few adult players decide they "want to play characters that are extremely powerful". They want to play a character, not a point on a power scale.
I do not believe that it is good game design, or particularly intended, to have "classes that are designed and intended" to be more powerful than other classes. The only game where that even partially worked might have been Ars Magica, and that was designed to regularly swap around the powerful role between players. Even the Buffy roleplaying game had mechanics to help balance between Slayers/supernatural characters and mere mortals.
No adult with whom I would wish to play consciously decides that "being top dog" is what is important to them.
"Being good at these things" is a worthy goal. "Overshadowing everyone at almost everyone" is not, and should never be what any class is for.
The entire point of this side discussion is that we do not think that the game design should "make it so those classes can be overshadowed".
I think that in this day and age, there is a strong narrative concept in the hero who perseveres and trains to become powerful, rather than just being born special. They didn't win the genetic lottery and have the ability to use magic, but through grit, skill, and determination can contribute to the success of a party just as much as those who did get the arcane spark.
I do not think that there is much traction with having a demographic that is not only inherently superior to others, but that it is right and proper that they be so, in modern times.
Corinnguard
Hero
Destiny, the reason why your character left behind their rather 'safe' livelihood for the life of an adventurer. The character wanted to prove to themselves and others that they got where they are now through grit, skill and determination. They set out to become the best they could be. Or life, without warning, just threw them into the deep end and now it's a sink or swim for them.
As for magic, it's just there. To use or not use.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
"Destiny" would not have any meaning in the model so presented. That's "your as-yet-not-experienced life-path will push you toward something dramatic." It has no bearing on whether training in X discipline gives you godlike power and training in Y discipline prepares you for being a valet to a person with godlike power.
Corinnguard
Hero
True, this thread's topic is about removing concentration and how it would affect gameplay. However, like so many threads here on EN World, it gets sidetracked by those of us who want to comment on something another poster said in their post.
MuhVerisimilitude
Hero
Not going to bother digging up your posts on the subject because I don't have the time, but I am fairly certain I have seen you in multiple threads on the subject of how crappy class balance in D&D is, and I remember your nickname in particular because unlike most people who argue against class balance you were one of the people arguing that the balance problem is good, actually. Casters are supposed to be better than martials.
Thus contradicting what you are saying here.
Similar Threads
D&D (2024)
Shapechange Spell a bit OP now?
