The conversation, at least insofar as I've been concerned, has been related to the differences in the capabilities of martials vs. casters. What are the differences in the things they can do?
Yes, but what sort of martial? "Martial" is a very broad bucket term, it's not a character concept. How are you going to discuss the mechanics of what a char can do, vs what it should be able to do, if you don't have a concept to relate it to ?
Should a martial be able to fly ? Should a martial be able to create earthquakes ? Should a martial be able to power word kill ?
How would I know how to make an assessment of those things ?
Should a barbarian of the storm be able to throw around lightning bolts ? Ooh, now that I can see, b/c it totally fits the concept. Let's have a mechanics discussion about how much dmg those lightning bolts should do and also a story discussion about how it happens - do primal spirits fight for/with them, do they channel the power of their ancestors, does their rage manifest in physical elemental form, etc. Should a barbarian of the storm be able to change into a dragon ? Umm ... no I don't think so, because I can't see any link to the char concept.
Should a draconic instinct barbarian be able to transform into a dragon ? Oooh, yeah that might work, let's a conversation about the mechanics of the dragon form to ensure it's balanced and a story conversation about how it happens - does their rage make them forget their identity and an ancestral one takes over, etc. Should a draconic instinct barbarian be able to throw around lightning bolts ? Umm ... well .... probably not because it doesn't seem to fit the concept.
See what I mean ? To me, in order to have any sort of meaningful dialog about mechanics, I would think we need to understand what sorts of char concepts those mechanics relate to. Not every martial character should be able to do every sort of supernatural, fantastical, magical thing that exists just b/c they're "a martial". So what should they be able to do ? Well, it depends on the char concept.
The abilities are those spelled out within the rules of the book. I can RP a billionaire character all day long, but if I don't have the right amount of gp on my character sheet, I won't be able to spend like a billionaire.
Of course. But this has nothing to do with whether the character is a martial or a caster. This is about getting DM buy-in to play a char concept that has implications for the shared world. You would need this regardless of whether you are wanting to play a martial or a caster.
Similarly with the ability to fly, break things, etc. A cooperative GM may allow those things to happen, but where they are not explicitly defined, I can't count on my character being able to do those things.
And I absolutely agree with you here. That's why I think some of those things you pointed out in PF2e are so good! More of those in D&D would be awesome. But which ones, for whom ?
The point is you don't end up with two full Arthurs. You end up with one by the book Arthur, and one significantly weaker wannabe, because one got Excalibur and can do all the King Arthur stuff that Excalubur let's them do, and one didn't get Excalibur, so they can't do that King Arthur stuff.
Sure, but this is just b/c that example happened to have a magic sword. The exact same thing is true of a Miyamoto Musashi WITH the Sword of Kas and one without. The one without can't do the stuff the one with it can do.
For your two Morganas, as far as I'm aware there is not an Excalibur equivalent, or if there is, it does not play as large a role in what she can do. So you may wind up with one being more powerful than the other, but they are both Morgana since they both can do all the things Morgana is able to do.
To simplify, taking magic items away from a caster generally makes way less of a difference to their abilities than taking them away from martial.
Ok, now
this is something we can have a mechanics discussion about !
What would be the big caster items ?
Staff of Power & Robe of the Archmagi ? +4 AC, spell attack and save DC - the spell save DC is likely to go from 18-ish up to about 22-ish
What about for martials ?
Pick any 2 of the following: Armour+3, Shield+3, Weapon+3 & Belt of Giant Str (I guess depending on whether you're going for offense of defense or a mix of both ?) - those are pretty impactful too.
Do you think they make way more difference than the caster ones ? I'm not convinced that's so.
So, the argument requires a martial to max out two abilities that none of their class abilities work with (presumably having to dump their primary and secondary ability scores to do so), and a DM that allows a character to have hundreds of thousands of gold from a Background choice?
Am I understanding that correctly?
LOL no, that was in reference to whether the game rules support being able to play the character concept you want!
Now, in many games, while that much gold does not translate to magic items, it would still be effective for many out-of-combat challenges. I do have reservations as to how well such a character would actually perform on most games however.
Agreed. Although, again, if the player wants to play Batman in D&D, and the DM is on board, why not?
I think that impression came from when you took the discussion of the mechanics difference between casters and martials using the King Arthur example as just being about the story.
Twice.
Ok, then I haven't managed to get across what I was trying to. I was trying to say that the char concept should come first, and then the mechanics should be evaluated against that, not just in a white room vacuum.
eg, if a player wants to play a Stalwart Guardian type character, there's not a lot of point of comparing the DPR output of this character compared to a blaster sorcadin and saying "See ? The martial gets the raw end of the deal again!"
Does that make more sense ?
No, the point that both GammaDoodler and myself were trying to explain to you is that the Fighter needs Excalibur and the rulership of England (both of which can only be granted by a generous DM) to be considered King Arthur - equivalent and at the same capability as Morgana is without the DM generosity.
Again, that's just b/c in that example the fighter came with a magic item as an integral part of the story and the wizard didn't. Some stories reverse that, Sauron comes with The One Ring as part of his story and wouldn't be the same without it - whereas Aragorn can be King of Gondor without a ring of power (or without Narsil either).
We're not claiming that "Morgana, wielder of the Staff of Power" is at the same power level as Morgana with just class features. We're pointing out that in general, King Arthur needs the DM to grant them the trappings in order to operate at the same level as Morgana without special treatment, and a fighter without the DM granting them special benefits is very much less capable and fun.
I agree there is a disparity in capability and that this heavily influences the fun factor. My thinking on where to go from there is: martial characters should have more awesome things baked into their classes that they can do at high levels that don't rely on external factors like magic items and world-building (I
think we agree on this?), but (maybe this is where we differ?) these things should be based on & make sense for their char concepts and the story the player & DM want to tell.
DM generosity is always nice, but it shouldn't be required for specific classes.
100% agree on this.
The opposite is also true IMHO, mechanics should be balanced enough, and char concepts & stories should be well defined & collaboratively created enough that it's not just about whether the DM is feeling generous or not, it's about does it make sense and is it a good story.