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

[Scribe]

I wonder if there was some way to nerf casters. Like, just throwing this out there, what if they only had d4 HD, and couldn't wear armor, and needed double the number of xp every level compared to the thief?

I mean tongue in cheek as it may be, clearly casters (and why all full now) is just a system flaw in 5e.

Restrictions removed, Power increased? Flawed.

Let them throw darts.

 

[Haplo781]

Even if we could do that, and get the flavor right, it still wouldn't be as much narrative force as Wanda. The writer can always use Wanda as a plot device without suspending disbelief. The examples you cite are just schticks, like hitting something with a hammer. See Thor's interaction with Dr. Strange to see what I mean.

I chose Steve for my example because he gets that flavor of being a Fighter right, where as Spidey to me feels more like a sorcerer whose spells all have a spider theme (especially in versions when his webs are not tech).

To be quite frank, I don't care what things feel like to you, or to anyone else who wants to restrict what I can do at the table. Wizards should add the option to play an over-the-top fighter who can inflict fear with a mighty shout and create shockwaves with his sword, or a rogue who can steal your shadow and escape from a force cage. And people who don't like those options can ignore them.

If you don't like asparagus, you just... don't order it when you eat out. You don't demand that the restaurant remove it from the menu.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Re: Rhinos -- Good lord. Yes, attributes have been constrained and it causes (especially in the case of Strength) some wonky discontinuities. We got it. I honestly don't know how this proves any grander point than giving all monsters stats and trying to fit all monsters into a scale mostly meant for human (or human-like) PCs causes some loss in granularity in modelling all creatures.

I see Robin Hood and Hercules being used as examples of the mundane fighter vs the epic fighter, with the idea that guys like Hercules get their power suddenly and guys like Robin Hood can't.

What about Beowulf? An "ordinary" warrior (no godly heritage, or such) yet he accomplishes great deeds, including ripping a powerful monster's arm off with his bear hands. While he is an accomplished warrior by the time the poem starts, it certainly isn't beyond the scope of imagination to envision him as "level 1" at some point in the past.

Rather than look at the examples that don't work for D&D, we should look for the examples that do. You can't really do Gandalf in D&D (a powerful angelic being) but that certainly doesn't preclude powerful wizards in the game.

I think Beowulf is a good example of how the various characters we tend that influenced or we now try to put into the D&D model, well, vary. Some of them are powerful because they were born with it (/bathed in the fires of the gods, etc.). Some are not powerful because they are mere mortals. Some are mere mortals but get to do the IRL impossible. Myth and folklore (and modern fantasy) follow no one formula. For D&D to be able to fit all these stories even passably well, there probably needs to be more than one model of being 'a martial.'

 

[Scribe]

Wizards should add the option to play an over-the-top fighter who can inflict fear with a mighty shout and create shockwaves with his sword, or a rogue who can steal your shadow and escape from a force cage. And people who don't like those options can ignore them.

For the sake of argument, and for this question let's pretend 5e is considered balanced by WotC, in regards to classes.

How is your mythic martial, balanced against the current Fighter?

 

[Haplo781]

Re: Rhinos -- Good lord. Yes, attributes have been constrained and it causes (especially in the case of Strength) some wonky discontinuities. We got it. I honestly don't know how this proves any grander point than giving all monsters stats and trying to fit all monsters into a scale mostly meant for human (or human-like) PCs causes some loss in granularity in modelling all creatures.


I think Beowulf is a good example of how the various characters we tend that influenced or we now try to put into the D&D model, well, vary. Some of them are powerful because they were born with it (/bathed in the fires of the gods, etc.). Some are not powerful because they are mere mortals. Some are mere mortals but get to do the IRL impossible. Myth and folklore (and modern fantasy) follow no one formula. For D&D to be able to fit all these stories even passably well, there probably needs to be more than one model of being 'a martial.'

Or, pick a tone for the entire game and stick to it. Don't do gritty realism for some classes and heroic fantasy for others.

 

[HammerMan]

For the sake of argument, and for this question let's pretend 5e is considered balanced by WotC, in regards to classes.

How is your mythic martial, balanced against the current Fighter?

We aren’t balancing against fight but against druid.

 

[Haplo781]

For the sake of argument, and for this question let's pretend 5e is considered balanced by WotC, in regards to classes.

How is your mythic martial, balanced against the current Fighter?

That's a hell of a what-if. But I'll point you to 4e, where it was entirely possible to play a martial class from 1-30 without taking a single power that people in your side of the fence would consider "magical", and... Well, even the most rabid 4e hater concedes it was the most balanced D&D ever.

 

[Scribe]

We aren’t balancing against fight but against druid.

OK, so the consensus (if one can exist) is the Mythical Fighter simply is not a pure Martial?

That's a hell of a what-if. But I'll point you to 4e, where it was entirely possible to play a martial class from 1-30 without taking a single power that people in your side of the fence would consider "magical", and... Well, even the most rabid 4e hater concedes it was the most balanced D&D ever.

Fair, I didn't play 4e, so can it be done in 5e?

For context, I fully believe a Gish should be a core Class.

 

[Alzrius]

Myth and folklore (and modern fantasy) follow no one formula. For D&D to be able to fit all these stories even passably well, there probably needs to be more than one model of being 'a martial.'

I agree that there needs to be more than one model of being a "martial" character. The issue, as I see it, is trying to have different models exist side-by-side in the same framework (i.e. the game rules) in a way that makes them all relatively equal in power and/or versatility at any given level.

It's one thing to want Conan the Barbarian in the game, along with Naruto Uzumaki. It's another thing to expect them to both be relatively equal in what they can do at, say, level 12, while still keeping them true to their respective source materials.

 

[Haplo781]

OK, so the consensus (if one can exist) is the Mythical Fighter simply is not a pure Martial?

Fair, I didn't play 4e, so can it be done in 5e?

Yes. You just have to start from the assumption of "a skilled warrior has more in his repertoire than the ability to hit things really hard."

Most of the level 29 fighter powers (the highest level attacks in the game) do things like "attack a guy with 3x base weapon dice and inflict the dazed status, or deal half damage and no daze on a miss. Then move without provoking OAs and attack a different enemy, and then do it one more time," or "hit one guy for 4x base weapon dice, then knock him into his allies like a bowling ball, doing damage to them and knocking them back."

The stuff that gets held up as "lol 4e fighters r majik" is like Come and Get It, which is just a standard "warrior issues a challenge to his foes, who approach and swarm him" trope. It's just that, mechanically, it force moves the enemies rather than going the route 5e would probably go, which is "the enemy must use Its movement on its next turn to move closer to you, ending within 5 feet of you if possible."