D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think that there are probably two positions* when it comes to martial class capabilities:

The Heroic Martial position wants high-level martial characters to be capable of legendary feats, far beyond what would be regarded as realistic for a real-life human.
Cleaving anvils in two, swimming up a waterfall, grappling a giant, cowing an entire army with a demonstration of their power (or even without), climbing along the ceiling, lifting a mammoth, sprinting across water etc.
This is generally the position of people who want to be able to shape the in-game narrative as much as the casters can by, if not matching their capabilities, at least approaching them.

The Credible Hero position wants high-level martial characters to be very good at what they do, but not beyond the bounds of what a normal (but gifted) person could achieve. (Or maybe just a bit better.)
Cutting down a large tree in less than a minute, swimming, running and sprinting as fast as a professional athlete, even in full armour, grappling a small bear, convincing a powerful opponent to back down with a hard stare etc.
This is generally the position of people who like the thought that in a world where casters are teleporting, flying, creating illusory dragons and devastating entire armies, a simple length of steel with some guts at both ends can still be relevant in at least some of the fights.

*Naturally since these are viewpoints described on the internet, the actual position a person likes will fall somewhere in between the two, according to their opinions.

 

[Celebrim]

The physics of giants doesn't make any sense either, they would collapse in upon themselves due to their own weight.

Ones of the scale of D&D, which tends to max out at around 21' (6-7 meters) probably would not. There are prehistoric sloths weighing in the 4 ton range which could assume an upright posture 12-15' high. While such giants could not have exactly the same proportions as humans, and would be relatively stockier for their height, you haven't really gotten beyond the bounds of what is physically possible at that size. Besides which, only Hill Giants seem entirely non-magical, and they are on the smaller end of the giant scale 'only' 12' high.

 

[Manbearcat]

What is going on is what is going on to keep mere mortals like Steve Rodgers or Natalia Romanova in a fight with super-powered freaks. On the meta-level you have a certain power of plot thing going on, and in the fictional level, neither Steve nor Natasha is really a mere mortal.

By the time you get a fighter above 10th level, they really can do pretty much anything Steve Rodgers can do. They can jump into water without a parachute, survive massive impacts and falls, and go hand to hand with things that are much bigger and stronger than they are. How they can do it is really not important. They can do it, provably, within the game universe. How you want to explain that is a negotiation between the DM and the PC that D&D historically has never really been interested in. It's "something" and it could vary from character to character (even characters with the same stats). Figure it out yourself.

I agree with this (as you know because we’ve had this conversation before).

The only time it matters outside of a particular table is when “but realism” is cited, without scrutiny for internal consistency and double standard, in these conversation where the “But realism” is being weaponized for D&D gatekeeping purposes.

So if people would cease and desist with the weaponization of “but realism” in their never-ending D&D culture war gatekeeping effort (even when its not applicable...such as this thread), you will stop seeing my justified scrutiny of the “but realism” position.

 

[Undrave]

No, DnD literally can not afford that. Last time they did, the game was a disaster and for the first time, another RPG took over as #1, which is as close to sacrilege in the TTRPG world as you can get.

Don't be so dramatic. The biggest complaint about 4e wasn't what Martials did (except for disingenuous arguments about 'Come and Get It') but rather than they could only do those things so often.

Beside, it's a spectrum and I feel like DnD is grading Fighters on too ordinary a scale. Even Rogues feel less mundane than regular fighters. Fighters feel like they're high school quarterback instead of being professional athletes like the Rogues are.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Don't be so dramatic. The biggest complaint about 4e wasn't what Martials did (except for disingenuous arguments about 'Come and Get It') but rather than they could only do those things so often.

Beside, it's a spectrum and I feel like DnD is grading Fighters on too ordinary a scale. Even Rogues feel less mundane than regular fighters. Fighters feel like they're high school quarterback instead of being professional athletes like the Rogues are.

There were two huge complaints about 4e:
1. It felt like a tactical board game
2. Everyone had powerz

As someone who skipped 4e for those reasons, and plays with others who also don’t like 4e, I am pretty familiar with what people complained about about the game. I’m guessing fans of 4e didn’t spend that much time around people who didn’t, so your exposure to how people felt who weren’t fans is limited.

And I’m not being dramatic. It’s unheard of that DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS would lose its spot as the #1 TTRPG. 4e fell flat, from a business perspective. That’s not being dramatic, that’s objective truth. And it split the gaming base up worse than any other edition, largely for the reasons I just gave above. Just look at 5e, which retreated from those two things, and how well it’s doing in the market now.

So no, DnD can’t afford to go back to one of the top complaints of 4e design.

 

[Garthanos]

Beowulf pulled off the limbs with raw strength of a giant who bit his fellows in two and swallowed their head whole if I recall.

 

[Manbearcat]

Any chance...any chance at all that this thread can NOT get derailed by yet more of the obsessive and endless siege against 4e D&D that has been 11 years running?

 

[Oofta]

Beowulf pulled off the limbs with raw strength of a giant who bit his fellows in two and swallowed their head whole if I recall.

So you're saying you want a better unarmed combat option for fighters? I could see that. Grappling is pretty weak in 4E, and powerful wrestlers are a pretty common trope.

That doesn't mean they need to have supernatural abilities, just a better way of applying damage without a weapon. Or maybe Beowulf was really a monk.

 

[Garthanos]

Beside, it's a spectrum and I feel like DnD is grading Fighters on too ordinary a scale. Even Rogues feel less mundane than regular fighters. Fighters feel like they're high school quarterback instead of being professional athletes like the Rogues are.

A real archer can fire 4 arrows in 6 seconds with full draw technique and another can reach almost a dozen snap shot barrage in similar time, the 5e fighter is positively boringly mundane.

A 4e archer specialist (yes likely a ranger of flavor of another) can do or exceed either of those tricks at level 1.

A professional foot ball player averages a 10 foot standing broad jump with 5e puts at 20 strength.

 

[Garthanos]

So you're saying you want a better unarmed combat option for fighters? I could see that. Grappling is pretty weak in 4E, and powerful wrestlers are a pretty common trope.

That doesn't mean they need to have supernatural abilities, just a better way of applying damage without a weapon. Or maybe Beowulf was really a monk.

Well I have decided that Cu Cuhlainne works wonderfully as a 4e Monk.