D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 2 - The Mundane Limit

[Gammadoodler]

It's not silent. It talks about magical/supernatural abilities that creatures get, which in the normal course of understanding shows that if you have something beyond real world mundanity, it's supernatural or magical. You don't see a creature with a dispelling strike that isn't a magical ability. You don't see a creature that turns people to stone with mundane gaze or touch. And of course the words natural, mundane, supernatural and magical use their commonly understood real world meanings.

A mundane ability to dispel magic would be contradictory to what 5e states about itself and meanings.



And I can in fact judge dispelling strike by the real world commonly used definition standards for the words mundane, magical and supernatural.

This is a strange way to interpret the abilities of the creatures in D&D and seems like a bit of a catch-22. Are they magical/supernatural abilities because they do not exist in the real world or are they mundane abilities for those creatures because they are just things those creatures can do? Kinda seems like you can pick whichever side of the argument suits you.

In either case though, again, all you've pointed to is an absence of evidence that mundane attacks can impact magical effects. The presence of a "dispelling strike" would be that evidence. It would not impact or contradict any of the current "dispell" interactions, it would just be one more.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Are they magical/supernatural abilities because they do not exist in the real world or are they mundane abilities for those creatures because they are just things those creatures can do?

That, I think, is relatively easy. Since we're talking about game materials, the point of view is us, not in world characters. Whether it's a thing they do or not, we can judge it as supernatural or not based on why it's a thing they can do. Is it due to exposure to magical energies? Supernatural, because magic is supernatural. Is it something a random farmer with nothing special about them could do with enough training and experience? Natural, and it's just an application of the way that magic interacts with the natural world (after all, if magic can interact with the world at all, why can't changes in the world alter the way magic interacts with it?).

 

[Minigiant]

For me that's not even sufficient. I want those abilities to be a result of such extreme training and skill that the fighter(or other martial) has progressed beyond natural limits and into the supernatural. Think Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat.

Oh I'm for that as well.

But I would be fine if martials required magic or special materials weapons and armor to directly interact with magic spells and magic constructs.

Much like attacking golems and fiends/celestials.

I am not mentioning that I think paragon martials should be able to swing magic weapons to make projectiles Samurai Showdown style.

 

[Gammadoodler]

That, I think, is relatively easy. Since we're talking about game materials, the point of view is us, not in world characters. Whether it's a thing they do or not, we can judge it as supernatural or not based on why it's a thing they can do. Is it due to exposure to magical energies? Supernatural, because magic is supernatural. Is it something a random farmer with nothing special about them could do with enough training and experience? Natural, and it's just an application of the way that magic interacts with the natural world (after all, if magic can interact with the world at all, why can't changes in the world alter the way magic interacts with it?).

Is the "why can they do xyz thing" often provided in the monster statblocks? Seems unlikely or else we'd be bogged down with discussions of the geneses of owl flybys and bear multiattacks.

Assuming they are though, then presumably we should be able to reach definitive conclusions about the way D&D worlds operate based on Monster Manual analysis. Someone should get on that. I assume the conclusions will be logical, internally consistent, and consistent with real world assumptions...I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

For the people who are having conceptual issues with Dispelling Strike - Is the problem due to similarities in the name with Dispel magic, and the assumption that it would work like the spell?
Is it a case that you would be fine with a suitably heroic character being able to smash magical constructs with a suitable expenditure of resources as one of their shticks, but more subtle spells could not be interacted with?

So you have no issues with a heroic character chopping through a Bigby's Hand, but cutting an enchantment out of someone, or punching a curse off them is a little too esoteric for a non-spellcaster?

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I don’t need my martials to be realistic. What I do want them to be is ‘possible’ however unlikely that is. Whereas magic is the preview of the ‘impossible’. Possible doesn’t have to mean easy, simple or obvious though. What John Wick does is in theory possible, though it would take a great deal of training and endurance beyond anything seen… it can be conceived as possible though. Levitating an inch of the ground without some external force is impossible though. That’s the difference with magic. Things martials can do are thoroughly not mundane!

By the same token magic doesn’t mean better, stronger, or more powerful… it just lets you do things that aren’t possible. it just lets you do things that aren’t possible.

I think people get this general concept. It's the "movie action hero" or "peak human superhero" type. What's hard to envision is the equalness to the mythic hero/full D&D spellcaster without plot contrivence devices. (How do we model Black Widow getting equal spotlight and impact to Dr. Strange?)

It's true that magic "doesn’t mean better, stronger, or more powerful" in some fiction. But how do you make sure that specifically D&D's version of magic / full spell caster (very powerful, flexible, fast) "doesn’t mean better, stronger, or more powerful" than the "action hero"?

I think this is a worthy class/concept to have in the game, but by definition the action hero's intrinsic power set can't be equal to a 20th Level Wizard, right? So how should we bridge the gap? Metacurrency? Narrative abilitles that at least give the action hero the conditions that maximize their ability to use their power set? More traditional limited use abilities? [forget bringing the Wizard down as that is another discussion]

Or perhaps action hero advocates are not really trying to make them equal, they just want better than the current martials? This is a much, much easier goal of course.

 

[Scars Unseen]

For the people who are having conceptual issues with Dispelling Strike - Is the problem due to similarities in the name with Dispel magic, and the assumption that it would work like the spell?
Is it a case that you would be fine with a suitably heroic character being able to smash magical constructs with a suitable expenditure of resources as one of their shticks, but more subtle spells could not be interacted with?

So you have no issues with a heroic character chopping through a Bigby's Hand, but cutting an enchantment out of someone, or punching a curse off them is a little too esoteric for a non-spellcaster?

So there're two ways I could see this ability going: the fully mundane or an ability based partially in augmentation. Keep in mind this is all conceptual, not reliant on any particular edition or ruleset.

The first: following the logic that if magic can affect the world, then the world must also be able to affect magic (how else would you be able to cast a spell in the first place?), the user of this ability has conceived of a method to disrupt magical effects before they fully take hold, causing spells and spell-like abilities to fizzle out and fail after they are cast, but before the effect takes place. The target spell must have an effect that is visible in order to successfully disrupt it, and the user of this ability must be within the spell's intended area of effect.

This version would be a defensive reaction type of ability, meant to represent training and experience alone. Just like some spells cannot breach cover, this ability is an effective ward against spells that the user can perceive.

The second: In the fight against the supernatural, the user of this ability has developed a method for seeking out and dispelling magical effects. They are able to find the link tethering an spell to the world and sever it, breaking whatever effect it had. In order to use this ability, the user must have some method of detecting magic, be it from a spell or magic item, and must be using a weapon enchanted with magic.

This version is more powerful, but rather than being a representation of training alone, it is a heightened ability to use tools for unintended purposes. It is given a plausible explanation for why the user can affect spells that aren't physical in effect without requiring that the user themself be trained in the arcane.

 

[Minigiant]

For the people who are having conceptual issues with Dispelling Strike - Is the problem due to similarities in the name with Dispel magic, and the assumption that it would work like the spell?

The assumption that it would work like a spell.

I have no problem with knocking off magic with strong enough application of force. You should be able to contain strong bombs with simple force constructs and common curses.

But the effect would not be "like Dispel Magic".

That's my gripe. The fear that the designer would be... for lack of a better word... lazy and copy spells rather than spend energy and page space writing up a new effect or class feature full with its own sense and fluff.

For example, I'd think a high level fighter would easier break a force constructs than an transmutation or enchantment of the same level spell.

 

[Scars Unseen]

That's my gripe. The fear that the designer would be... for lack of a better word... lazy and copy spells rather than spend energy and page space writing up a new effect or class feature full with its own sense and fluff.

Not only that, but taking spells and converting them to martial equivalents doesn't solve the basic issue people discussing this have: that high level casters can do anything martials do, but better and more. The logical extreme of this path is converting every spell to a martial equivalent, and then you've "solved" the problem by essentially getting rid of martial characters.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In order to use this ability, the user must have some method of detecting magic, be it from a spell or magic item, and must be using a weapon enchanted with magic.

Or maybe there's mundane techniques in-universe that detect magic without spells or magic items.

Turns out magic has a special vibration that someone trained to listen for it can 'feel out'. Or a scent like ozone that varies based on type and magnitude.

Anything besides magic is a special thing out of context for the world and not actually a part of the fantasy world.