D&D 5E Being strong and skilled is a magic of its own or, how I learned to stop worrying and love anime fightin' magic

Aren't skinned as magic or aren't skinned as spells?
Depend who you ask. Some are ok as magic, but not spells (because components). Others want supernatural or primal power, not magic.

Personally it is the same to me.
I mean, for example, monks being able to leap 50+ feet is pretty supernatural while not skinned as magic.
Actually Ki powers are skinned as magic. Not sure if that 50' leap is a Ki power or not as I am not very familiar with the class. But really the monk issue is it is not a armor and sword and board user.
Too fiddly for me, personally.
Me too, but it approximates 4e style martials which is what some have asked for. 4e Martials had just as many "exploits" to choose from as wizards had "spells."
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I can understand that martials don’t reach the power levels casters can but part of that comes with the presumption that martials are keeping up a consistent output of damage whereas casters have limited capacity for their higher output and are going to be getting drained off by the ‘expected 8 encounters per adventuring day’, but ‘doesn’t reach the same levels’ does not mean and is not the same as ‘not even in the same leagues’

But casters have too many spell slots to effectively empty their resources in a single adventuring day and that’s not even accounting for actually achieving the 8 encounters in the first place or the 5MWD rearing it’s head, the casters have spells to interact with and override the ‘rules’ of all three game pillars quickly and easily while the martials are bound to the skill system where they can basically just frown disapprovingly at npc’s or attempt to move a large(but not too large) boulder,
 
Last edited:

Aren't skinned as magic or aren't skinned as spells?

I mean, for example, monks being able to leap 50+ feet is pretty supernatural while not skinned as magic.
Well, that's kind of the sticking point, semantically. Some people use "magic" as synonymous with "supernatural", while other use magic as synonymous with "spellcasting".

I meant that the abilities should be obviously distinguishable and not interchangeable with spellcasting. Can't be a scroll, can't be a spellbook, not a bard ancient secret, etc.
 

I can understand that martials don’t reach the power levels casters can but part of that comes with the presumption that martials are keeping up a consistent output of damage whereas casters have limited capacity for their higher output and are going to be getting drained off by the ‘expected 8 encounters per adventuring day’, plus ‘doesn’t reach the same levels’ is not the same as ‘not even in the same leagues’

But casters have too many spell slots to effectively empty their resources and that’s not even accounting for actually achieving the 8 encounters in the first place or the 5MWD rearing it’s head, the casters have spells to interact with and override the ‘rules’ of all three game pillars quickly and easily while the martials are bound to the skill system where they can basically just frown disapprovingly at npc’s or attempt to move a large(but not too large) boulder,
That is why I tried making the Warrior 4 months ago.
 

Yes, magical warrior, but not a spellcasting warrior. That is what people have been asking for

To be clear, "people" is a large set. Some people have been asking for a magical, but not spellcasting, warrior. Other people have been asking for a warrior that is somehow not magical, but just as powerful anyway. Other people insist that spellcasters need to be toned down.

"People" ask for many things, you see. Failure to recognize this will result in a failure to fix the problem, because in general, when you ask people what their problem is, they instead give you their preferred solution. They then reframe the problem as, "I lack this solution."

This is a recognized phenomenon in, say, software development, where being a skilled product manager includes being skilled at finding the actual problem, solving it, and then getting the customer on board with how you actually solved it.

It is likely that there's a collection of different issues various folks have with the game, that are clustered under one umbrella, and fixing only one of them will still leave the others frustrated.
 


I suspect the tag on this thread should be changed, as this isn't a 5E issue. It's one that D&D has struggled with for a long, long time
Right. Fundamentally from almost day one*, but certainly by the time supplement I came out and magic users got level 7-9 spells**. That said, when magic users were eternally very fragile (and once AD&D added spell fizzling on a hit), and fighters got armies and preferential magic item (which let them be at least partially thor-like demigods without it breaking anyone's immersion), it worked better -- although it still was predicated on different conceptions of balance compared to what we now use.
*IMO, oD&D missed the ball by wildly reducing the power of higher-level fighting men (Heroes and Superheroes) as compared to how they fared in Chainmail instead of taking 8x as many hits as a level one fighter, a superhero only dropped when taking 8x as many hits at once, and also doled out a similar amount of damage in attacks (against the primary opponents on the field).
**which mostly were for NPC opponents because 'PCs were never going to get that high' or something like that. That notion was quickly dispelled, but new balancing metrics weren't put in place once EGG et al. realized that playstyle wasn't going to happen.

That era of play is also where we did get some of the issues with how characters were conceived. Despite allusions to Conan, Fafhrd, or Cugel, the initial game was built around regular joe soldier types (not appreciably distinct from general hirelings) wandering mazes searching for treasure. And that's where a lot of people formed their preference for how fighters are supposed to play out in terms in no-innate-superhuman-ness (even though the magic users have changed significantly since then).
Lately I've become convinced that the root of the LFQW problem lies with the central mechanic of D&D levels: that a person can become infinitely more powerful just by practicing. This works just fine for casters, since the basic idea is someone who gains immense power through knowledge. A character knowing a thing implies a time when they didn't know it yet, so it's easy to picture a wizard at Level Elminster or whatever and work backwards to imagine his earlier, lower-level days.

Most other powerful fantasy figures don't get their power in the same way. Hercules didn't learn to be the son of Zeus; Nightcrawler didn't learn to be a mutant. Achilles gets dipped in the river Styx and Bruce Banner gets caught in a gamma bomb, but it happens all at once, not over the course of several years and a dozen levels. None of these characters really have a level one incarnation. A suitable martial archetype for dungeons and dragons doesn't just need to be Hercules. It needs to be a nobody who can pick up a sword and become Hercules one day just by working really hard, and that's not something you see in Western fiction very often.
I don't know if the magic origin is important or not (people keep mentioning that Hercules is a demigod, and I keep wondering why that matters so much). But yes, a character must be able to pick up a sword and eventually become a character of whatever superior ability one lands on for the upper limit of fighter epic-ness.
I get the feeling everyone got used to the 'linear warriors, quadratic wizards' trope and now when you deviate from it people get upset.
The issue is them insisting on others play the BMX Bandit so their Angel Summoner can feel special. It's crappy and selfish and I just don't have any patience for it anymore.
I think you underestimate the fans/D&D gamers. I don't know a single person who plays casters that think it is a good thing that this disparity exists or want to keep martials down 'so they can feel special' (honestly, the people most avid at keeping martials constrained seem to be people who want to play very mundane martials). Instead I think it is a fundamental issue that caster stock rose when their limitations* disappeared, martials did not get a commensurate boost at that time, and most things that have been put forth to boost martials** violate someone's sense of what a fighter is.
*and I do think it is a good thing that spells are no longer limited by being really inconvenient to use, although exactly then is when they should have reigned in the overall power of the spells.
** such as giving them magic.

Saitama doesn't need that wuxia crap. He just needs one serious punch.

Martial prowess isn't to be found in complex tricks, nor is the problem in the power level between casters and martial classes primarily a combat problem.
Certainly that's the part where (effectively) the martials can't even play while casters readily can. That's why I think the best/easiest/most fruitful place to address this issue is make non-spell solutions to problems other than 'there are enemies around who still have hp left.' It's very hard for a fighter or rogue to solve the same problems as Fly (depending-- is 'gets a pegasus mount' too magical a class ability?), but most of the other utility spells it could be easier to bring the spell solution and the mundane solution closer in effectiveness and rigorous, reproducible resolution mechanics.
 

Because that's what 'magic' is. Belief in magic is belief in plot armor and narrative force in the real world.
So people who don't cast spells dont get plot armor?

There's a word for those types of characters. That word is not "hero".

Oh, it should, but designers should be really careful of introducing absolute narrative force the way that they haphazardly did in the past to be terse, particularly when this absolute thing overshadows non-magic users.
You can make it not overshadow non-casters by giving non-casters an equal amount of narrative control.
 


Remove ads

Top