D&D 5E Martials v Casters...I still don't *get* it.

[Undrave]

My primary point is that on this issue there isn't that much room for compromise. What one side wants the other hates. So it's divisive. That was the point. And when you change a game that is one way into a game that is the other way, you are "forcing" out those who consider the changes unacceptable. I don't see this as all that controversial a statement.

No one wants to 'change the game' we just want a new friggin' class or some new class features.

Yes but these options often look like spells to me. They have limits on usage without any explanation in fiction. 5e's second wind for example and 4e's daily and encounter martial maneuvers. So when you use up some resource that without a magical explanation doesn't exist, it doesn't sit well with some portion of the playerbase.

No one said anything about that kind of resource managements. They can just be at-will stuff with precise conditions. We just want STUFF with the same sort of narrative controls a spell can give you. The Rogue is filled with that kind of abilities already. We already have stuff like Fighting Styles, so how about similar but in different pillars? And we have Hit Dice as a daily resource we could tap into.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Thats not actually the quote. You got it the wrong way round...

“The majority of spells mimic things that could be done by other means and a bit of effort.”

It’s not that a fighters abilities should mimic spells. It’s that most spells just offer shortcuts to things that could happen mundanely.

That is a meaningless distinction. You've claimed equivalence. Saying A=B is the same as saying B=A.

 

[TheSword]

But they are present and you have to either plan for them or hamstring them, those are the options.


Depends. The adventure writer has to acknowledge those methods exist and not write the adventure in such a way that those options can't unintentionally foil it.

If your entire adventure is finding out who the killer is, then yes you have a pretty crappy adventure for D&D.

It’s more than possible to write an adventure that doesn’t fundamentally care whether speak with dead exists as a spell or not.

Teleportation circle is high-mid level (5th) it's much easier to work around that teleport, but must still me acknowledged as a thing.

And lets not forget that this thread started (or at least quickly morphed to) with a big discussion on play at 20th level - where teleport and other worldshaking spells are definitely a thing.

Teleport circle is extremely limited.

That said it doesn’t matter. Teleport is a waste of a spell. Except for one reason... escape... oh wait players can escape with mundane means as well. Unless the DM through fiat has made that impossible.

Teleport has one use... to make things look cool. It’s flashy magic. That’s it. There is no narrative use that couldn’t be replaced by another form of travel.

 

[TheSword]

That is a meaningless distinction. You've claimed equivalence. Saying A=B is the same as saying B=A.

No it isn’t. As I said the magic method was quicker and easier. The ‘bit of effort’ part of the quote is material. They are not equivalent. Just the end result is.

 

[Mort]

That said it doesn’t matter. Teleport is a waste of a spell. Except for one reason... escape... oh wait players can escape with mundane means as well. Unless the DM through fiat has made that impossible.

Teleport has one use... to make things look cool. It’s flashy magic. That’s it. There is no narrative use that couldn’t be replaced by another form of travel.

Unless the DM has expressly built in ways to escape, running from a fight by mundane means is extremely difficult in 5e. The combat rules aren't really made for it and the chase rules, while fun, are, as written, extremely clunky.

 

[TheSword]

Unless the DM has expressly built in ways to escape, running from a fight by mundane means is extremely difficult in 5e. The combat rules aren't really made for it and the chase rules, while fun, are, as written, extremely clunky.

Is there any point continuing this? You’re suggesting the DM has to expressly build ways to escape... yes the same ways everyone else would get in and out and reasonable features of whatever the location is. This is not an unreasonable burden.

At this point I’m happy to agree to disagree with you.

 

[Gammadoodler]

No it isn’t. As I said the magic method was quicker and easier. The ‘bit of effort’ part of the quote is material. They are not equivalent. Just the end result is.

My 'misquote':
"Most spells can be mimicked through other means with enough time and effort"

Your correction..
“The majority of spells mimic things that could be done by other means and a bit of effort.”

A = B...
B = A

No difference.

So again..why the need for differential mechanics?

 

[FrozenNorth]

No.

A good adventure writer doesn’t create situations that require speak the dead, scry. They have to plan for these not to be present as well as present.

So having them just speeds things up. The end result is the same.

Ach, no TRUE Scotsman creates encounters that can be bypassed by scry, invisibility, speak with dead, Leomund’s Tiny Hut, Polymorph etc.

 

[TheSword]

My 'misquote':
"Most spells can be mimicked through other means with enough time and effort"

Your correction..
“The majority of spells mimic things that could be done by other means and a bit of effort.”

A = B...
B = A

No difference.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, forcing it to water, making it drink and then sending it to the glue factory.

If you’re going to use quotations, quote the words. Don’t misquote them.

My quote refers to the ‘thing that can be done’... the end result. Not the action to achieve it. Which I make clear takes more time and effort.

The spell is action. You don’t mimic the spell. You mimic the end result. They are not equivalent.

 

[TheSword]

Ach, no TRUE Scotsman creates encounters that can be bypassed by scry, invisibility, speak with dead, Leomund’s Tiny Hut, Polymorph etc.

No bypassing the encounter is fine. Just don’t write an adventure where it’s raison d’etre hinges on that one encounter. Is that not obvious?