D&D 5E Martial Characters vs Real World Athletes

[Morty]

Sometimes I wonder how much of this debate pertains specifically to 5e and how much is a carryover from 3e/PF. We can still complain about martial versatility outside of combat, but I don't think you can really claim that a 5e fighter isn't in the same league as a 5e wizard or cleric in combat.

Can't we? They can certainly do damage reliably, but apart from that, the dynamic appears unchanged. They still get more numbers and actions to do the exact same thing from level 1 to level 20, while wizards and clerics get progressively more world-strangling spells. The gap is smaller, certainly, but honestly, 'not as broken as 3e' isn't a high bar to jump over.

 

[Sadras]

Guys, the DMG is still forthcoming...can we at least lower our mundane pitchforks and wait for the optional modules to come out before we declare war on the world-stranglers.

 

[pemerton]

the system should either admit that you're playing a scrappy underdog who survives on luck and narrative fiat, or give your non-magical characters abilities that let them match those of the ostensibly magical ones. Don't do the former and pretend to do the latter.

My only quibble with your excellent post is that these aren't exclusive alternatives: the abilities for non-magical characters can be metagame abilities (eg encounter powers) which allow their players to ensure the requisite degree of luck and narrative fiat to make their "scrappy underdogs" effective in play.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well no. There are no non-supernatural elves in LotR. They are so magic they can't even understand how humans differentiate between magic and mundane tasks like household chores and crafting.

In 5e terms however I'll point out that you can pretty much exactly portray movie Legolas as a Wood Elf Monk.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this within the context of the conversation we're having here. Yes, Mirkwood Elves (et al) are described as having a supernatural affinity with nature (and the natural magic that pervades it) but that has no bearing on the context of martial excellence that Legolas displays. Their (basically) immortality can be described as supernatural, but that might only because their physiology isn't scientifically understood.

To the point, the off-the-charts, noncombat martial acumen (in D&D terms - Athletics and Acrobatics) displayed by Legolas is never explained as a magical thing. Its actually well mimicked by a 4e Elven feat whereby elves can never have a 2-7 on Athletics or Acrobatics. By proxy of this feat, they almost never fail a medium DC check (which is the vast, vast majority of checks) in noncombat conflict resolution. This is an extremely powerful boon mechanically and the way it maps to the fiction is that it spits out a character with a mundane derived martial acumen that is borderline perfect in its execution (eg - it protagonises the elven PC toward a Legolas martial archetype). Further, Legolas's elven sight and light-footedness are also delivered by way of mundane elven features and augmented by feats.

As far as Legolas being able to be delivered by way of the Wood Elven Monk, I'm very skeptical. I'm not sure how far afield the PHB Monk runs from the playtest one (which I'm familiar with), but the playtest Monk didn't capture much of the Legolas archetype. About the only thing it captured was the light-armored skirmisher archetype. I'm fairly certain he doesn't have the proficiency with weapons (the bow and elven longknife) that Legolas possesses. The other stuff is delivered by mystical capabilities of which Legolas is never shown to D-Door or fuel his martial excellence by latent spiritual reserve. Legolas would definitely be an archer/dual wielding Fighter. He definitely wouldn't be a Ranger. I'm not sure even a gestalt Fighter/Monk would probably capture the noncombat efficacy of Legolas. He is still in a bounded accuracy task resolution system and still failing (fairly benign in their impact on the fiction) athletics and acrobatics at a clip that completely deprotagonizes the archetype.

With respect, that's a trap. The differences between 5e and 3e appear subtle but are profound in their interactions and on table play.

The significance of the concentration mechanic is not that concentration can be disrupted, although that is not to be sneezed at. It is that you can have only one concentration spell going at a time.

I have bolded the spells with a duration of concentration. In 3e you could have all of those going at once. In 5e, pick one and only one at a time. If you want to Fly above the melee, you're not doing anything else in bold. If you want to cast web, or charm, or hold person, you have to land and risk melee. That is not a minor nerf.

I'm aware of that side of Concentration's impact. However, I wasn't figuring it into this equation as it is typically invoked as the means to curtail the outlandishness of Codzilla and melee buff stacking. I figured you were invoking it in the "A flying Wizard (etc) can't reliabily pass Concentration checks and thus that shtick is curtailed."

I don't see a problem with that portion of Concentration for the Evoker (eg generalist) Wizard here. He has 16 - 20 spells per day beyond his supercharged cantrips (which can be the primary source of his damage) - 15 + 5 spell levels to use as he sees fit. He doesn't need to Concentrate on another spell while he is scouting with Arcane Eyes. He doesn't use Concentration when he is someone else with Disguise Self. He has spells to burn if he wants to Levitate or Fly somewhere or Passwall and then Invis or whatever. I'm just finding it hard to imagine how this guy is going to struggle with all of his noncombat flexibility because Concentration. I mean, gone are the days of the improved invis, flying, stoneskinned, wind-walled Wizard. But that is just a silly and uncessary combo mainly reserved for NPCs to keep them afloat long enough to cast their 2 encounter changing spells.

What is interesting (and this will be very interesting to [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] I think, as he and I have talked about this in the past), is that, in this edition, Charm explicitly states that the charmee is now aware of the charming effect (however Suggestion, Dominate, et al do not). That will be very impactful to play.

I keep saying this: If you want magic, it has a lower buy in cost in 5e than in any previous version if D&D. If you don't want magic, why are you complaining about not having magic? The ability to do something to bypass the normal resolution system is pretty much the definition of magic.

On the first part, I don't think that is true at all. The 4e buy in to magic was considerably lower. You can't be a Ritual Caster in this edition if you don't already cast spells. 4e siloed its Ritual Casting away from class spellcasting mechanics. As such, you can have Fighters as Ritual Casters or anyone else (I'm GMing one currently).

On the second part, [MENTION=54843]ZombieRoboNinja[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] both address this. Resolution mechanics are merely the construct by which players and GMs resolve action declarations to "find out what happens" in the fiction. They don't have any fictional manifestation themselves. Further, spellcasting mechanics are transient things throughout many systems. A D&D player saying "I cast this second level spell and this happens" is different than "I roll this 'Cast a Spell" resolution check and see what happens" is different than "I roll percentile dice, modify them, consult this table to see what happens" is different than "I allocate this many dice/points and roll to see what happens". None of them are "magic" in and of themselves. They're all varying resolution systems that "within the fiction" are magic because the inhabitants of the setting have deemed "what happens" as magic. The resolution mechanics are just a metagame proxy.

 

[TwoSix]

Guys, the DMG is still forthcoming...can we at least lower our mundane pitchforks and wait for the optional modules to come out before we declare war on the world-stranglers.

I have a magical pitchfork, to go along with my everburning torch.

 

[Mort]

On the first part, I don't think that is true at all. The 4e buy in to magic was considerably lower. You can't be a Ritual Caster in this edition if you don't already cast spells. 4e siloed its Ritual Casting away from class spellcasting mechanics. As such, you can have Fighters as Ritual Casters or anyone else (I'm GMing one currently).

I'm confused by this assertion. in 5e Ritual Caster is a feat - it expressly gives you access to ritual spells and allows you to cast them (and even starts you off with 2 spells in your ritual book).

A variant human can be a ritual caster at 1st level, everyone else can do it by 4th+.

 

[Andor]

On the first part, I don't think that is true at all. The 4e buy in to magic was considerably lower. You can't be a Ritual Caster in this edition if you don't already cast spells. 4e siloed its Ritual Casting away from class spellcasting mechanics. As such, you can have Fighters as Ritual Casters or anyone else (I'm GMing one currently).

You should stop relying on the playtest to judge 5e. The Magic Initiate feat gives two cantrips and a 1st level spell from any one classes spell list. Prerequisite: None whatsoever. The Ritual Caster Feat has a prerequisite of 13 Int or Wisdom, not spell casting. Either feat is easily available to a 1st level Human fighter. (Although only a human)

On the second part, [MENTION=54843]ZombieRoboNinja[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] both address this. Resolution mechanics are merely the construct by which players and GMs resolve action declarations to "find out what happens" in the fiction. They don't have any fictional manifestation themselves. Further, spellcasting mechanics are transient things throughout many systems. A D&D player saying "I cast this second level spell and this happens" is different than "I roll this 'Cast a Spell" resolution check and see what happens" is different than "I roll percentile dice, modify them, consult this table to see what happens" is different than "I allocate this many dice/points and roll to see what happens". None of them are "magic" in and of themselves. They're all varying resolution systems that "within the fiction" are magic because the inhabitants of the setting have deemed "what happens" as magic. The resolution mechanics are just a metagame proxy.

I'm going to disagree. Obviously this is a matter of opinion but aside from opinion, there are concrete game mechanical ramiications to an ability being mundane. Most obviously in the existence of anti-magic zones which utterly negate magic and effect a Champion or Battlemaster not at all. (The Anti-Magic zone spell is in the PHB, so no, this is not campaign or GM dependant.)

Furthermore even without that there are mechancial considerations. An archer needs a bow and arrows to do damage at range, a Wizard cannot toss a firebolt from within the radius of a silence spell. A Terrasque will bounce the firebolt back at the mage, but not an arrow.

Lastly the fighter does have plenty of system altering agency it's just restricted to combat, which is his area of specialty after all. At first level he can "suck it up" with Second wind and take himself from deaths door to full on a good roll. And it's the only non-spell bonus action self-heal. Both the Paladins Lay On Hands and the Monks Wholeness of Body require an Action. With Action Surge a Fighter can take up to eight attacks a round. A Paladin, Barbarian or Rogue get 2. Three with TWF. A Monk, the explictly magical warrior type, spending Ki, and under the effect of a Haste spell can make 5. Tie a high level Champion to a stake and try to burn him and do you know when he dies? In a couple of weeks from starvation, since the fire can't keep up with his regeneration.

However given that you and Pemerton take the stance that resolution mechanics are detachable from the fictional overlay, you are perfectly capable of refluffing any ability as anything else. You are fully aware that you could make your fighter an Eldritch Knight at the rules level, but refluff all his abilities as sheer Mythic martial might at the fiction level. Fireball is throwing a wagon, or barrel of flaming oil one handed. Passwall is punching through a castles Barbican in a single blow. Given the ability to refluff, what more do you need?

 

[Morty]

Guys, the DMG is still forthcoming...can we at least lower our mundane pitchforks and wait for the optional modules to come out before we declare war on the world-stranglers.

I'm willing to be surprised, but I doubt optional modules are going to change anything on this front.

My only quibble with your excellent post is that these aren't exclusive alternatives: the abilities for non-magical characters can be metagame abilities (eg encounter powers) which allow their players to ensure the requisite degree of luck and narrative fiat to make their "scrappy underdogs" effective in play.

That's a good point, yes. There are systems which use such narrative fiat as the basis of magic/non-magic balance. And such abilities can easily coexist with powerful magic and epic skill, and it's already there in the form of some rogue class features.

 

[Mort]

My only quibble with your excellent post is that these aren't exclusive alternatives: the abilities for non-magical characters can be metagame abilities (eg encounter powers) which allow their players to ensure the requisite degree of luck and narrative fiat to make their "scrappy underdogs" effective in play.

The playtest version of the fighter's Indomitable ability (advantage on all saves vs. magic) was a great example of this. Unfortunately, the final version is a pale reflection of this.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

You should stop relying on the playtest to judge 5e. The Magic Initiate feat gives two cantrips and a 1st level spell from any one classes spell list. Prerequisite: None whatsoever. The Ritual Caster Feat has a prerequisite of 13 Int or Wisdom, not spell casting. Either feat is easily available to a 1st level Human fighter. (Although only a human)



I'm going to disagree. Obviously this is a matter of opinion but aside from opinion, there are concrete game mechanical ramiications to an ability being mundane. Most obviously in the existence of anti-magic zones which utterly negate magic and effect a Champion or Battlemaster not at all. (The Anti-Magic zone spell is in the PHB, so no, this is not campaign or GM dependant.)

Furthermore even without that there are mechancial considerations. An archer needs a bow and arrows to do damage at range, a Wizard cannot toss a firebolt from within the radius of a silence spell. A Terrasque will bounce the firebolt back at the mage, but not an arrow.

Lastly the fighter does have plenty of system altering agency it's just restricted to combat, which is his area of specialty after all. At first level he can "suck it up" with Second wind and take himself from deaths door to full on a good roll. And it's the only non-spell bonus action self-heal. Both the Paladins Lay On Hands and the Monks Wholeness of Body require an Action. With Action Surge a Fighter can take up to eight attacks a round. A Paladin, Barbarian or Rogue get 2. Three with TWF. A Monk, the explictly magical warrior type, spending Ki, and under the effect of a Haste spell can make 5. Tie a high level Champion to a stake and try to burn him and do you know when he dies? In a couple of weeks from starvation, since the fire can't keep up with his regeneration.

However given that you and Pemerton take the stance that resolution mechanics are detachable from the fictional overlay, you are perfectly capable of refluffing any ability as anything else. You are fully aware that you could make your fighter an Eldritch Knight at the rules level, but refluff all his abilities as sheer Mythic martial might at the fiction level. Fireball is throwing a wagon, or barrel of flaming oil one handed. Passwall is punching through a castles Barbican in a single blow. Given the ability to refluff, what more do you need?

I'm with you up until the last paragraph. Just as there are in-game mechanics that differentiate spells from other abilities (mundane or supernatural, I'd point out), there are mechanical differences between casting fireball and throwing a wagon. First off, throwing a wagon required a wagon instead of bat guano. Second, it doesn't take spell slots. Third, all that anti-magic stuff you mentioned. But the EK does work as a starting point - the subclass I made uses it as a touchstone for the appropriate power level of daily fighter subclass abilities.