D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 1 - Magic, its most basic components

[TheOneGargoyle]

Base Thor is probably a better comp than Thor+Mjolnir, but The Hulk might be even better. He is a leaping, punching, building destroying force of nature, and his "only" capabilities are that he is really strong and really durable.

I can't think of anything in 5e that comes close to modeling this. Meanwhile, compare a high-level caster vs. say Dr. Strange and it's not that far off.

Another alternative could be something like the wire-fu flying martial artists, hell, you could probably borrow a lot of the kinda out there physical capabilities from martial arts movies, anime, etc.

At the end of the day, it's a fantasy RPG. You can say characters can do badass superhuman stuff because they just can. You don't need to rationalize it with some special access to external power or magic or whatever.

I think this temptation to try and rationalize is kind of the source of the divide. You go.."Well it's still just a dude with a sword. They can't possibly do xyz" without even thinking about why that's true. Meanwhile, if you say.. "It's a magic dude with a sword," suddenly the world of possibilities opens up.

The thing is..these characters are equally imaginary..the only difference is what limitations you are willing to place on them based on a single descriptor.

To me it's totally fine to have those abilities, it's not about that, it's about internal consistency.

I'm one of those people who say "But shouldn't the fire dragon's mouth be immune to fire? Otherwise when he breathes fire it would burn on the way out?." and other people say "Dude, seriously ? It's a lizard the size of a battleship who can fly, breathe fire and cast magic spells living in pretendyland populated by actual deities and the bit you're stuck on is an oral burn ?"

Yes, yes I am. Just because a world doesn't operate by the same rules as our world doesn't mean it can't be a consistent setting or doesn't have any rules at all. And it's totally fine for the in-game characters to have no idea how those rules operate in that setting, but IMHO it's much easier to play in, easier to DM for, and a lot easier to relate to the story (for me anyway) if out-of-game we have some idea of how that setting works.

The setting for Marvel is that some people are superheroes. So Hulk is superstrong and super durable, more so the angrier he gets. That's totally fine and consistent, and I have no issue with him doing "super" stuff because of it. But if he punched in a tank when he wasn't particularly angry and then couldn't break open a door even despite being super enraged I would be going .... ummm .... huh ? Those things don't make sense. Because it contradicts the way it set itself up.

It's the same with D&D characters. I have no issue with "a magic dude with a sword" being a character concept. That sounds like an Eldritch Knight or a Bladesinger or something to me. I have no issue with high level martial artists doing wire-fu and crazy-arse ki powers, and in fact, I would be extremely disappointed if high level monks couldn't do that stuff, it would make no sense.

To me, the "magic dude with a sword" has a power source, it's usually called arcane. The X-men have a power source called "being a mutant". Wire-fu martial artists have a power source called "Ki". This is all fine.

The problem to me comes when somebody says "My Hulk starts throwing around fireballs" and to that I say .... huh ? That doesn't seem right. And it's the same when someone has a concept like "non-magic dude with sword" (eg Champion Fighter) and then says "Ok I want to fly, not b/c I've got some cool magic item that let's me do it but just because I want to cos I'm high level and my awesomeness should let me do it" ... to which again I say .... huh ?

By contrast if that same player said "My non-magic dude is so freakin legendary good with his sword that he should be able to do the perfect strike, Save or Die" I say, oh that makes perfect sense, carry on !

Make sense ?

 

[Voadam]

Base Thor is probably a better comp than Thor+Mjolnir, but The Hulk might be even better. He is a leaping, punching, building destroying force of nature, and his "only" capabilities are that he is really strong and really durable.

I can't think of anything in 5e that comes close to modeling this. Meanwhile, compare a high-level caster vs. say Dr. Strange and it's not that far off.

Another alternative could be something like the wire-fu flying martial artists, hell, you could probably borrow a lot of the kinda out there physical capabilities from martial arts movies, anime, etc.

At the end of the day, it's a fantasy RPG. You can say characters can do badass superhuman stuff because they just can. You don't need to rationalize it with some special access to external power or magic or whatever.

I think this temptation to try and rationalize is kind of the source of the divide. You go.."Well it's still just a dude with a sword. They can't possibly do xyz" without even thinking about why that's true. Meanwhile, if you say.. "It's a magic dude with a sword," suddenly the world of possibilities opens up.

The thing is..these characters are equally imaginary..the only difference is what limitations you are willing to place on them based on a single descriptor.

Is you example of a non-magical fighter without a narrative source of super power . . . the Hulk?

Because the gamma radiation powered super strength and toughness seems to explain the leaping and building destroying.

From the Avengers Captain America and Hawkeye and Black Widow seem the natural exemplars of cinematic normal human abilities even if the cinematic universe super soldier serum seems more powerful than the older comics based serum's peak normal human abilities.

Even batman's non-magical flight is explained by his grappling hook guns or his actual plane, not just because.

 

[Gammadoodler]

To me it's totally fine to have those abilities, it's not about that, it's about internal consistency.

I'm one of those people who say "But shouldn't the fire dragon's mouth be immune to fire? Otherwise when he breathes fire it would burn on the way out?." and other people say "Dude, seriously ? It's a lizard the size of a battleship who can fly, breathe fire and cast magic spells living in pretendyland populated by actual deities and the bit you're stuck on is an oral burn ?"
Mu
Yes, yes I am. Just because a world doesn't operate by the same rules as our world doesn't mean it can't be a consistent setting or doesn't have any rules at all. And it's totally fine for the in-game characters to have no idea how those rules operate in that setting, but IMHO it's much easier to play in, easier to DM for, and a lot easier to relate to the story (for me anyway) if out-of-game we have some idea of how that setting works.

The setting for Marvel is that some people are superheroes. So Hulk is superstrong and super durable, more so the angrier he gets. That's totally fine and consistent, and I have no issue with him doing "super" stuff because of it. But if he punched in a tank when he wasn't particularly angry and then couldn't break open a door even despite being super enraged I would be going .... ummm .... huh ? Those things don't make sense. Because it contradicts the way it set itself up.

It's the same with D&D characters. I have no issue with "a magic dude with a sword" being a character concept. That sounds like an Eldritch Knight or a Bladesinger or something to me. I have no issue with high level martial artists doing wire-fu and crazy-arse ki powers, and in fact, I would be extremely disappointed if high level monks couldn't do that stuff, it would make no sense.

To me, the "magic dude with a sword" has a power source, it's usually called arcane. The X-men have a power source called "being a mutant". Wire-fu martial artists have a power source called "Ki". This is all fine.

The problem to me comes when somebody says "My Hulk starts throwing around fireballs" and to that I say .... huh ? That doesn't seem right. And it's the same when someone has a concept like "non-magic dude with sword" (eg Champion Fighter) and then says "Ok I want to fly, not b/c I've got some cool magic item that let's me do it but just because I want to cos I'm high level and my awesomeness should let me do it" ... to which again I say .... huh ?

By contrast if that same player said "My non-magic dude is so freakin legendary good with his sword that he should be able to do the perfect strike, Save or Die" I say, oh that makes perfect sense, carry on !

Make sense ?

I was actually going to circle back to address this anyway. I think it's a difference in opinion regarding design process.

One way to go about it is to start with character thematics and use that to inform what the character is capable of (e.g. a wire-fu character should be able to fly).

Another way to go about it us to start with character capabilities and use those to build out thematics. (e.g. a character can fly, what reasons might exist for that capability).

The second method (in my opinion) is way easier to "balance" and offers a lot more freedom in the potential themes you can explore. At the end of the day, it's much more important what the character can do, than why they can do it.

Consider two characters. Both can slice through diamonds (or whatever) with their sword. One is "magic", and one is a mundane but badass "master swordsman". Is one theme better than the other?

Conversely, if one character is "magic" and one is a "master swordsman", are they equally likely to be able to slice through those diamonds (or whatever). If they aren't .. why?

This is the basic difference between building a martial character in 5e vs. PF2e. In PF2e, your decision points are what you want your character to be able to do. In 5e, with limited exceptions, your decision points are about who you want your character to be.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Is you example of a non-magical fighter without a narrative source of super power . . . the Hulk?

Because the gamma radiation powered super strength and toughness seems to explain the leaping and building destroying.

From the Avengers Captain America and Hawkeye and Black Widow seem the natural exemplars of cinematic normal human abilities even if the cinematic universe super soldier serum seems more powerful than the older comics based serum's peak normal human abilities.

Even batman's non-magical flight is explained by his grappling hook guns or his actual plane, not just because.

This is exactly the fallacy I'm talking about. Non-magic does not have to mean non-super.

Why does a peak fantasy martial have to cap out at Hawkeye or Batman?

Edit: consider too that Batman and Hawkeye are intended to serve the narrative function of being resourceful with less explicit power. Their comparative weakness exists for storytelling purposes. It's not really a good comparison for a game. RPGs don't need explicitly underpowered player characters.

Edit2: If your character just is as strong as the Hulk, without any of the gamma radiation why is this a problem?

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

I was actually going to circle back to address this anyway. I think it's a difference in opinion regarding design process.

One way to go about it is to start with character thematics and use that to inform what the character is capable of (e.g. a wire-fu character should be able to fly).

Another way to go about it us to start with character capabilities and use those to build out thematics. (e.g. a character can fly, what reasons might exist for that capability).

The second method (in my opinion) is way easier to "balance" and offers a lot more freedom in the potential themes you can explore. At the end of the day, it's much more important what the character can do, than why they can do it.

Consider two characters. Both can slice through diamonds (or whatever) with their sword. One is "magic", and one is a mundane but badass "master swordsman". Is one theme better than the other?

Conversely, if one character is "magic" and one is a "master swordsman", are they equally likely to be able to slice through those diamonds (or whatever). If they aren't .. why?

This is the basic difference between building a martial character in 5e vs. PF2e.

I'm super interested in this and might have to go buy a PF2e bundle so that I can explore this in more detail....

Ultimately I don't think one is or should be better than another, but some people prefer and relate more to "master swordsman" than "magic dude with sword", and although it's not my preference, I strongly want systems to support their preference. So, master swordsman should be a perfectly viable and capable char concept, and at high levels should be just badass and awesome as the magic sword guy, but it's ok for them to be different.

I guess what I'm saying is that in some cases, their abilities should be the same, in other cases they should be comparable but distinct. Maybe they can both slice through diamonds (if that's a thing in a particular game?) but maybe they both have awesome defence through entirely different means - the magic sword guy has a force field around him whereas the master swordsman through sheer skill & combat experience has already sussed out the enemy from the way they move and can predict exactly how they're going to attack and knows how to counter it with ease. Or something.

I agree with the importance of balancing but that's always tricky, but I just think that these are characters and concept matters. If someone wants to play Black Widow, or Hawkeye, they're AWESOME, they don't have to be magic to be super. Balancing is always tricky, look at Superman vs ... well anyone.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'm super interested in this and might have to go buy a PF2e bundle so that I can explore this in more detail....

Ultimately I don't think one is or should be better than another, but some people prefer and relate more to "master swordsman" than "magic dude with sword", and although it's not my preference, I strongly want systems to support their preference. So, master swordsman should be a perfectly viable and capable char concept, and at high levels should be just badass and awesome as the magic sword guy, but it's ok for them to be different.

I guess what I'm saying is that in some cases, their abilities should be the same, in other cases they should be comparable but distinct. Maybe they can both slice through diamonds (if that's a thing in a particular game?) but maybe they both have awesome defence through entirely different means - the magic sword guy has a force field around him whereas the master swordsman through sheer skill & combat experience has already sussed out the enemy from the way they move and can predict exactly how they're going to attack and knows how to counter it with ease. Or something.

I agree with the importance of balancing but that's always tricky, but I just think that these are characters and concept matters. If someone wants to play Black Widow, or Hawkeye, they're AWESOME, they don't have to be magic to be super. Balancing is always tricky, look at Superman vs ... well anyone.

If you're interested in tinkering a little bit, the free Pathbuilder mobile app really helps streamline the process of making decisions. And the website "Archives of Nethys" has maybe most of the rules content freely available online.

It's not perfect. There are a million feats, with significantly varying utility, and conditions can be a nightmare rabbit hole to try and parse, so having good VTT integration really makes a difference when you run it.

But if you can navigate those things, the action system is really simple and impactful in play, and as a martial, I don't feel like I'm playing checkers while casters are playing 4d chess.

As for the rest, I don't have a problem with some flavorful distinctions for how a class might accomplish something. I don't even really have an issue with some classes/subclasses being able to do slightly more or less than others. My main source of irritation is when I see the weird areas where people are unwilling to suspend disbelief unless the word "magic" appears somewhere, and then once "magic" appears, anything is fair game.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I'll echo Gammadoodler's concerns. This analysis is extremely abstracted. "Change things," "make things," and "break things" is about as pure-abstract as you can get without reducing to a single category, "do things."

That was my impression as well. If I had time to do it, I'd review each spells and classify them along this tree:

1. Remove challenge in combat
1.1 Against a single target (fear, hold person...)
1.2 Against a group of targets (web, hypotonic pattern, symbol of pain...)

2. Remove HPs
2.1 Against a sigle target (fire blast to power word kill)
2.2 Against a group of targets (Magic missile to meteor swarm)

3. Remove social challenges
3.1 Extended Insight skill (various divination spells)
3.2 Extended Persuasion skill (from Friends to Dominate Monster)
3.X...

4. Remove exploration challenges
4.1 Extended Athletics skill (water breathing, various forced movement spells...)
4.2 Extended Mounted Vehicle tool proficiency... (phantom steed, teleportation...)
4.X....


With the idea of associating each spell with a skill or attack-equivalent ability. Then, I'd endeavour to provide non-casters abilities in the same power range, but more focussed than spellcasters (who are penalized by limited casting slots). An assassin character could spam Save-or-Die abilities but not fly. A wuxia monk can hop from cloud to cloud easily after balancing on a twig to jump higher. I have no problem with wizards, and I think 5e nerfed them too much. But if a 1st level spellcaster is Mickey Mouse in Fantasia and a 20th level spellcaster is Karsus "what could go wrong if I cast a spell that lets me replace the goddess of magic with me?", then you can't have a 1st level warrior being a random squire and a 20th level warrior being Leonidas. You need him to be Hercules at this point and have your thief totally steal the shadow or voice of someone as was suggested above. Like the Trickster path in Wrath of the Righteous CRPG where taking mythic trickster ability in Persuasion let you persuade your foes that the afterlife is much better than their current situation and kill themselves...

 

[Voadam]

I'm super interested in this and might have to go buy a PF2e bundle so that I can explore this in more detail....

16 days to go on the PF2e Humble Bundle.

 

[Voadam]

This is exactly the fallacy I'm talking about. Non-magic does not have to mean non-super.

Why does a peak fantasy martial have to cap out at Hawkeye or Batman?

Edit: consider too that Batman and Hawkeye are intended to serve the narrative function of being resourceful with less explicit power. Their comparative weakness exists for storytelling purposes. It's not really a good comparison for a game. RPGs don't need explicitly underpowered player characters.

Edit2: If your character just is as strong as the Hulk, without any of the gamma radiation why is this a problem?

The hulk is a martial. He is not an explicitly non-powered martial however.
He does not have super strength just because he has a high strength score on the character sheet. The narrative concept is inhumanly powered strength. This is not comparable narratively to literary Conan's strength.

You could do an Earthdawn style game where all classes are powered so Conan the Barbarian becomes magically enhanced at themed things like strength to superhuman levels, but that is a different narrative than heroic non-magical human.

 

[Vaalingrade]

My solution was to point out that adamantine and other fantasy minerals are trace dietary minerals so anyone in this world is made of sterner stuff than people on Earth, so martials can also be fun.

About fifteen years ago someone taught wizard players the word 'verisimilitude' and they've been using it to ruin all the other classes ever since.