D&D 5E Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural?

[Corinnguard]

Maybe I misunderstood the original post. I think this thread has devolved into a debate on martials, but I don't think that was the intent. My understanding of the OP is it was a question about what type of fighter you should build:

Should martial characters be mundane or supernatural Simple enough question. What are your thoughts?

I don't see this post as about scratching an itch. I see it as a question:

Should players build mundane martials, for example a Human Champion with GWM and PAM feats.

OR

Should players build supernatural martials, for example a Hexblood Psi Warrior throwing Hex with Fey Touched and Telepathic feats.

You're probably right.

 

[ECMO3]

Counter play, via a mechanic to shut down a spell cast, is absolutely crucial to me.

Mage Slayer feat has mechanics that are close to that if it is a concentration spell and you are within 5 feet.

 

[Scribe]

What would you do to make said mechanic fun to play on both sides of the screen? Because right now, for my money it ain't.

I don't know if you have experience and context for "Reactive Blue Deck" players in MtG, but where counterspell exists, is the competitive space of both mtg and d&d.

It feels no better or worse than being crit or otherwise impacted.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Exactly!

It's also a different kind of game design. 1e is closer to "dungeon survival," with 5e being closer to a narrative kind of game (with a clear emphasis on combats).



The 1e MU only does this if they find the right treasure, just as the fighter only lops of heads if they find the right treasure.

The 5e Wizard does this if they want to, and the 5e Fighter should be able to basically do stuff like this if they want to, as well. Magically manipulate minds, fire arrows that burst into energy, create illusions, conjure items out of thin air (or at least a magical sack), turn invisible, teleport, change shape, etc.

Give everyone those tools (more like 5e) or give no one those tools (more like 1e), but don't expect that you can put a "mundane" character without those tools in a game where wizards are promised those tools without seeing that discrepancy. It's not a problem of Big Enough Numbers or Enough Cool Options, exactly, it's more a problem of genre expectations.

A primary and foundational genre expectation is exactly that difference.

Yeah, it's a serious question! Because how "magical" something is can be a moving target. If using an explicitly magical sword every round is less magical than turning invisible, once, then we've got some handy guidelines to the aesthetics of magic.

And a fighter who can turn invisible once a day is then not "mundane" anymore.

But a fighter who can't turn invisible once a day isn't going to feel equal to a Wizard to a lot of people (no amount of Hide Real Good is going to match this vibe).

So, I'm proposing, we just let the fighter turn invisible. Let's just be supernatural. She learns a rune she can scribe onto armor that lets her do that. Booyah.

That isn’t what people who like the fighter want from the class, so no. That isn’t just supernatural, it’s magical. The fighter base class doesn’t create magical effects, that lives in subclasses.

A fighter who resists Magic more easily than others, can physically interact with magical effects, eg target the magic of a shield spell rather than the caster and break the shield if they hit, delfect an attack spell with their weapon or shield, interrupt casters and potentially make them lose thier spell, etc, and just succeed at physical tasks more than others, and exceeding RL human limitations like jump distance and sprinting speed (less dramatically than the monk but at-will), stands next to the high level casters.

They are meant to do different things. Making them do the same things is bad for the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know if you have experience and context for "Reactive Blue Deck" players in MtG, but where counterspell exists, is the competitive space of both mtg and d&d.

It feels no better or worse than being crit or otherwise impacted.

I am familiar with Blue control, and IMO the only person who enjoys it is the one "noping" all the other players' attempts to do cool stuff.

 

[Oofta]

To a (YMMV) logical limit which is the actual issue here and why (besides the obvious 4e commentary hiding in plain sight) there are so many threads on this.

There is no consensus on what is mundane, what is appropriate as 'mundane' what is magical, what 'magical' even means "No no its supernatural!" and so on.

Until folks actually try and define and set parameters, its all just pointless mud tossing.

People can, and have defined it. I've defined what it means to me more than once. Doesn't mean anyone agrees with my, or anyone else's definition.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't know if you have experience and context for "Reactive Blue Deck" players in MtG, but where counterspell exists, is the competitive space of both mtg and d&d.

It feels no better or worse than being crit or otherwise impacted.

MTG mostly fixed the main design issue with blue control 20 years ago. Fixed it so hard they ran into the opposite problem.

D&D is decades behind people in the same building.

 

[Micah Sweet]

MTG mostly fixed the main design issue with blue control 20 years ago. Fixed it so hard they ran into the opposite problem.

D&D is decades behind people in the same building.

My question is: how do you make that strategy not immensely frustrating for players and GM alike? I have seen it from both sides, and IMO Counterspell always generates a NPE for somebody.

 

[Scribe]

I am familiar with Blue control, and IMO the only person who enjoys it is the one "noping" all the other players' attempts to do cool stuff.

Having played roughly a million control mirrors, I can assure you there is a type of person who enjoys it, regardless of being on the receiving end or not.

 

[Scribe]

MTG mostly fixed the main design issue with blue control 20 years ago. Fixed it so hard they ran into the opposite problem.

D&D is decades behind people in the same building.

You've mentioned this before, but it remains not really correct. There have been various Ux or Uxx decks which have been permission based throughout Standard, and most other formats, for decades on end.

Hearthstone is the 'fix' for this, and its a pale childlike imitator at best.

My question is: how do you make that strategy not immensely frustrating for players and GM alike? I have seen it from both sides, and IMO Counterspell always generates a NPE for somebody.

Maturity, is the fix for this. It is a game, and it offers answers beyond 'I get to do what I want, your turn!'