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

[Asisreo]

Maybe I'm just not up on DC comics lore.. No character can have superhuman speed if they aren't relying on the speed force??

If that's true (and I'm reasonably sure it isn't..bc Superman), yeah, it's kinda dumb.

Like seriously, what purpose does that limitation serve?

To quiet overzealous nerds who read a comic and goes "But according to relativity and the laws of conservation!"

Also, most comic writers aren't really theoretical physicists themselves, so introducing a force that isn't "magical" in the traditional sense is less likely to pull a reader out of their otherwise modern and mundane world, at least for the first few issues.

 

[Asisreo]

And that's my general issue with the whole "you need magic" argument..Why?? What benefit is there to having magic be the one catch all solution to every problem?

Probably simplicity.

The world with dragons and Wizards will be magical. There isn't anything you can do about it without changing the core definition of those words. Since magic already conveniently exists, anything difficult to explain like "Why is this guy moving in the air without wings?" Can be explained by "magic."

And you may think there are things that exist fantastically that isn't magic. That's true. But digging deep enough would either reveal its actually just a non-existent but scientifically consistent phenomenon or it involves magic in some form.

 

[Voadam]

Let's flip this around. You've shown how you believe the narrative context matters for the martial (I disagree, but let's go with it). Can you show something similar for the spellcaster?

That context matters for the magical?

Like how superman has defined powers, lots of them, powerful ones, a bunch that are fairly nonsensical and not themed, but you would not expect him to go invisible without a narrative explanation?

Or that some traditions of magic have narrative definitions and so departures of that should be explained?

Like most D&D editions have hard defined spell effects but 4e encouraged use of arcana skill to bend some spell definitions.

 

[Asisreo]

Like how superman has defined powers, lots of them, powerful ones, a bunch that are fairly nonsensical and not themed, but you would not expect him to go invisible without a narrative explanation?

Okay, bad example. Superman can literally cause illusions in some continuities, which is how Louis doesn't realize Superman but with glasses is also Superman.

 

[Gammadoodler]

That context matters for the magical?

Like how superman has defined powers, lots of them, powerful ones, a bunch that are fairly nonsensical and not themed, but you would not expect him to go invisible without a narrative explanation?

Or that some traditions of magic have narrative definitions and so departures of that should be explained?

Like most D&D editions have hard defined spell effects but 4e encouraged use of arcana skill to bend some spell definitions.

You've specifically laid out how the source of a martials power impacts what they should be able to do. Can you perform the same exercise for casters?

So far what you've done is exactly what I've advocated, "Here are Superman's powers. He can't do things that are not his powers". You've provided zero narrative context for those powers or why they should or should not make sense.

To clarify (hopefully)..
Me: I want fighters to be able to bust through walls like the Hulk
You: Have they been exposed to gamma rays?
Me: No..
You: that ability is not adequately justified in the narrative context

You: Superman is stronger than a locomotive
Me: How are you justifying that in his narrative context
You: It's one of his powers.

It's a weird double standard.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

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.

16 days to go on the PF2e Humble Bundle.

Awesome! Thank you both, I'm going to check those out

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

You've specifically laid out how the source of a martials power impacts what they should be able to do. Can you perform the same exercise for casters?

So far what you've done is exactly what I've advocated, "Here are Superman's powers. He can't do things that are not his powers". You've provided zero narrative context for those powers or why they should or should not make sense.

To clarify (hopefully)..
Me: I want fighters to be able to bust through walls like the Hulk
You: Have they been exposed to gamma rays?
Me: No..
You: that ability is not adequately justified in the narrative context

You: Superman is stronger than a locomotive
Me: How are you justifying that in his narrative context
You: It's one of his powers.

It's a weird double standard.

Ok, I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. How about this:

Player 1: I want my character concept to be a fighter, a Master Swordsman, he's like Musashi, natural prodigy, trained by the best, lives his whole life by the sword, the absolute best anyone's seen in centuries. I want him to be able to pull off the Inigo Monteya hallway scene of cutting 4 guys down in one smooth movement that's so impressive the bad guy drops his sword and runs away.

Player 2: I want my character concept to be a fighter too, but a magic warrior, he's an eladrin and was in training to be a royal guard for the Seelie Court on the Feywild, but got out-maneuvered and was exiled. I want him to use magic to augment his sword-fighting, blade in one hand spell in the other, and help the party knowing all sorts of obscure arcane stuff.

Now, fast forward, both players have been playing their characters for ages and they're now both epic level ! Woohoo !

Let's say for example that Player 2's character is decent in his sword skills, and decent at magic. He's not as good with the sword as Player 1's character, and he's not as good at magic as a full-blown wizard. But overall, by mixing both together, he comes out as an equally capable character that can do a bit of both things. Player 2 loves this char.

Player 1's character is legendary, known far and wide as the best swordsman in the land. He can't fly like Player 2's character can (unless he gets a magic item to do that), and he can't meteor swarm like a wizard, but he can single-handedly take on an advancing army and turn the tide of a battle by wading through them cutting them down one by one and is basically untouchable by them. Player 1 is super happy that his char is awesome, and non-magical.

Question: What do you want Player 1's character to be able to do that he can't do? And why ?

 

[Vaalingrade]

That context matters for the magical?

The context being 'it's magic, we don't have to explain it', which allows spellcasters to be fun while using the same logic to yoke martials.

 

[tetrasodium]

Question: What do you want Player 1's character to be able to do that he can't do? And why ?

From reading the thread literally everything player 2's character can do and everything player 3's wizard character can do.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Ok, I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. How about this:

Player 1: I want my character concept to be a fighter, a Master Swordsman, he's like Musashi, natural prodigy, trained by the best, lives his whole life by the sword, the absolute best anyone's seen in centuries. I want him to be able to pull off the Inigo Monteya hallway scene of cutting 4 guys down in one smooth movement that's so impressive the bad guy drops his sword and runs away.

Player 2: I want my character concept to be a fighter too, but a magic warrior, he's an eladrin and was in training to be a royal guard for the Seelie Court on the Feywild, but got out-maneuvered and was exiled. I want him to use magic to augment his sword-fighting, blade in one hand spell in the other, and help the party knowing all sorts of obscure arcane stuff.

Now, fast forward, both players have been playing their characters for ages and they're now both epic level ! Woohoo !

Let's say for example that Player 2's character is decent in his sword skills, and decent at magic. He's not as good with the sword as Player 1's character, and he's not as good at magic as a full-blown wizard. But overall, by mixing both together, he comes out as an equally capable character that can do a bit of both things. Player 2 loves this char.

Player 1's character is legendary, known far and wide as the best swordsman in the land. He can't fly like Player 2's character can (unless he gets a magic item to do that), and he can't meteor swarm like a wizard, but he can single-handedly take on an advancing army and turn the tide of a battle by wading through them cutting them down one by one and is basically untouchable by them. Player 1 is super happy that his char is awesome, and non-magical.

Question: What do you want Player 1's character to be able to do that he can't do? And why ?

I'd be pretty darn happy if player 1's character can do the things you are saying player 1s character can do.

But that is not a high level D&D martial. You put a level 20 fighter up against an army, and you get 1 very dead martial and maybe 8 dead bodies around him (but more likely not even that after considering misses and enemy hitpoints). They are neither as deadly nor as untouchable (and certainly not both) as you describe.