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

[Gammadoodler]

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.

What does "explicitly non-powered" mean to you in the context of a fantasy RPG, where the characters explicitly level up and get "powers"?

Do you really need the word "magical" or "supernatural" or whatever in front of every ability to be cool with it?

 

[Voadam]

What does "explicitly non-powered" mean to you in the context of a fantasy RPG, where the characters explicitly level up and get "powers"?

Do you really need the word "magical" or "supernatural" or whatever in front of every ability to be cool with it?

Characters without explicit super/magical powers where the class powers they get are cool combat and skill type abilities.

Character concepts from the inspiring media that fit that mold:

Conan.
Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.
Anybody in the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings.
Hawkeye and Black Widow.
Batman and Green Arrow.
Bare Knuckle Brawler Sherlock Holmes.

These are all decent models for a non-explicitly powered D&D character.

Hawkeye having lots of hp from levels does not mean he can take a direct grenade hit, it means he does not because that fits narratively.

The hulk having lots of hp from levels could mean he can take a direct grenade hit because it works narratively with his explicit toughness power.

Narrative context matters.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So... no legendary warriors. Just ISO standard badass normals?

No Beowulf? No Cuchulainn? No one actually fantastic as an example of a Fantasy warrior at all?

This is an illustration of the problem.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Characters without explicit super/magical powers where the class powers they get are cool combat and skill type abilities.

Character concepts from the inspiring media that fit that mold:

Conan.
Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.
Anybody in the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings.
Hawkeye and Black Widow.
Batman and Green Arrow.
Bare Knuckle Brawler Sherlock Holmes.

These are all decent models for a non-explicitly powered D&D character.

Hawkeye having lots of hp from levels does not mean he can take a direct grenade hit, it means he does not because that fits narratively.

The hulk having lots of hp from levels could mean he can take a direct grenade hit because it works narratively with his explicit toughness power.

Narrative context matters.

It really doesn't when 100% of the narrative context exists outside the rules.

What matters is what characters can do.

Chararcters who are blessed by or born of the gods, gifted with magical ability, posess natural but extraordinary physical gifts, or who have achieved incredible mastery of technique.. can all be equally fantastic.

The only limits are your willingness to engage in the fantasy.

 

[Asisreo]

Could you imagine if a fighter had a SoD effect?

Open-handed Monks have a literal SoD action that does damage even if they do save. And it's noncounterspellable, nondispellable, and can be silently applied.

But anyways, comparing 5e to other systems that integrate the "magic-less" martial is unfair because the core assumption is that Magic is mandatory for adventurers in D&D. And it's always been this way for D&D. Even 4e, which many proclaimed "fixed" the disparity still requires your "pure martial" to have a magic item lest they find themselves not doing anything in combat.

Put another way, it's like saying firearms are overpowered in a military-based TTRPG when you want to play a melee-based unit. Sure, that's true, but that's because the playstyle you want is just incompatible with the system. By no means are you wrong for wanting or liking that playstyle, but calling a wrench broken for not being able to screw a nail is hard to relate to.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But anyways, comparing 5e to other systems that integrate the "magic-less" martial is unfair because the core assumption is that Magic is mandatory for adventurers in D&D. And it's always been this way for D&D. Even 4e, which many proclaimed "fixed" the disparity still requires your "pure martial" to have a magic item lest they find themselves not doing anything in combat.

1) It's never been explicit, and 5e is worse with this giving non-magical options, then making magic 'optional'

2) 4e only relied on magic items to shore up the numbers because apparently no one thought of non-magical gear enhancements or fantastic materials..

 

[Gammadoodler]

Open-handed Monks have a literal SoD action that does damage even if they do save. And it's noncounterspellable, nondispellable, and can be silently applied.

But anyways, comparing 5e to other systems that integrate the "magic-less" martial is unfair because the core assumption is that Magic is mandatory for adventurers in D&D. And it's always been this way for D&D. Even 4e, which many proclaimed "fixed" the disparity still requires your "pure martial" to have a magic item lest they find themselves not doing anything in combat.

Put another way, it's like saying firearms are overpowered in a military-based TTRPG when you want to play a melee-based unit. Sure, that's true, but that's because the playstyle you want is just incompatible with the system. By no means are you wrong for wanting or liking that playstyle, but calling a wrench broken for not being able to screw a nail is hard to relate to.

I don't think this is a valid comparison. Generic "Magic" isn't a specific tool with a specific purpose. Spells are tools, Magic items are tools. That said, so are "mundane" items and abilities

Do we really think that we are breaking the playstyle of D&D by providing mundane equivalents or alternatives to "magic" tools?

 

[Voadam]

Even 4e, which many proclaimed "fixed" the disparity still requires your "pure martial" to have a magic item lest they find themselves not doing anything in combat.

You mean for the attack and defense plusses to stay on par for the expected level baseline numbers? That seemed to affect martials and magicals equally.

Also the DMG II and Dark Sun workaround alternate rule of inherent bonuses solved that item dependency for baseline numbers nicely I thought.

I feel 4e and 5e did good jobs on making martials and magicals balanced in combat.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

Hercules Samson and Achilles were all heroes with powers that were non magic...

 

[HammerMan]

Conan.
Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.
Anybody in the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings.
Hawkeye and Black Widow.
Batman and Green Arrow.
Bare Knuckle Brawler Sherlock Holmes.

These are all decent models for a non-explicitly powered D&D character.

Hawkeye having lots of hp from levels does not mean he can take a direct grenade hit, it means he does not because that fits narratively.

The hulk having lots of hp from levels could mean he can take a direct grenade hit because it works narratively with his explicit toughness power.

Narrative context matters.

Batman can be made as a fighter/monk/rogue or you could go back to 4e and make him just a rogue... but at the end of the day
Hawkeye, Black Widow, Batman and Green Arrow all clearly have powers. They can do (and survive) things no real person could.