D&D (2024) Martial vs Caster: Removing the "Magical Dependencies" of high level.

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

The common argument for the "martials" in this debate is that past a certain level point, they want to see that gap shrink. Aka high level martials should be doing "the impossible", not in the same way as casters, but in a way that a low level person would watch and go "I can't believe it".

Most people are fine with the low level martial being grounded by physics and the wizard every once in a while bending the rules of reality a bit. Because the gap isn't that large and the number of times the wizard can do it is relatively small. But past a certain point, the bending of reality gets pretty intense, and the martial is still grounded by physics. The camp that wants martials to close the gap basically want to remove that grounding at a certain point, and allow martials to start doing some reality bending "impossible things"

This is right. With a couple adds:

* this is assuming that spellcasting remains the same. a lot of folks wouldn't mind spellcasting being reigned in and thus less of of a need for martials to get so mythical at high levels to begin with. but for many this is a ship has sailed, so let's figure out martials within this context.

* a common trait of those arguing for "mythic martials" seems to be that they are pretty flexible. They don't mind if the current Fighter/Champion remains in the game. They just want other options that close this gap. They don't care if it's called Fighter or not. They are ok with some kind of power source to explain why it's possble, etc. They are fine with several flavors so people can be happy -- mundane guy + class magic items, mythic power source person, keep the current Fighter, etc. Many are ok with it being an optional class(es) in seperate books as well.

What I can never figure out is why some people are so opposed to adding this option to D&D? As long as the new class is equal to or less powerful and versatile than the current Wizard, what's the big deal?

Even if you are ok with the current Fighter, does it hurt you somehow to have additional options?

 

[James Gasik]

Reading all 46 pages of this topic I came to the conclusion that the game would be much better if D&D design team remove all utility spells, leaving only the damage spells. Thus, any actions out of combat or aimed at utility would be resolved with skill checks. Well, I'm going to test this rule on the next table I'm going to run.

It feels like we had this edition...sometime between between 2008 and 2014...nah, I must be imagining things.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm not too finicky about the particulars, but I think if you had a range of outcomes between

"I can produce the effects of that spell 100% of the time"

And..

"I cannot produce the effects of that spell at all"

Then you could more easily introduce things into the system that make casting more difficult or easier sometimes. Maybe you're standing on a leyline or the moon is just right or something and you get a bonus on whatever your casting.

Ability checks can do this. A roll that achieves the ritual DC has a standard effect. If it exceeds the DC by 5 or 10, it can add a bonus effect.

... If it fails the DC, nothing happens. But if it fails by 5 or 10, perhaps something Bad happens.

Some rituals might be for a simple routine purpose, thus lack something Bad if a roll fails. But other rituals might bring about a unique threat. It depends on the ritual.

Each ritual can stand on its own, except powerful rituals might require a character level prereq (whose flavor is an amount of "personal life experience and general competence"). Rituals can have bizarre effects (like a boat growing fish scales or the Magic Mouth spell) or bland effects (like turning on a street lamp or the Alarm spell). Rituals, can have almost any "ritual component" from only performable during a full moon, to requiring 8 hours of meditation, to the presence of a certain plant or creature, to a specific location − almost any kind of prereq. Any religious ritual, and folklore story, almost anything can be an inspiration for a D&D "ritual".



I dont mind the Wizard spending a spell slot to guarantee a standard spell effect of a ritual. But I know I wouldnt spend a slot if I didnt need to. I would keep the guarantee of slots for combat or similar urgency. I am less a fan of gambling, but for that reason I would hold on to slots if I can. Meanwhile other players might love to gamble, and risk a bad effect to get an extra good effect.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not too finicky about the particulars, but I think if you had a range of outcomes between

"I can produce the effects of that spell 100% of the time"

And..

"I cannot produce the effects of that spell at all"

Then you could more easily introduce things into the system that make casting more difficult or easier sometimes. Maybe you're standing on a leyline or the moon is just right or something and you get a bonus on whatever your casting.

Maybe this is true, but you do understand that being heavily outnumbered is different from being alone.

So perhaps it would make sense to acknowledge that the claims are not isolated to a single user and stop implying some defect in the user for making the claim.

I haven’t implied that. I’ve stated that a poster’s position on the subject seems more extreme than anyone else I talk to about D&D or observe playing D&D, and that it doesn’t track with champion fighter being the most popular class/subclass.

how convenient, there is nothing anyone can say that will change your mind that I am somehow weird and not close to the norm.

I don’t mince words. If I thought you were a weirdo, well since we are in a place where telling you that isn’t allowed, I’d probably just put you on ignore if it bothered me.

But, it seems that you’ve taken my statements that way regardless of intent, so, fair enough. I wasn’t clear. I apologize.

again I think (and unlike you I wont pretend to know) that it's 5-10% on both sides and no one has ANY way to know what side has more... then 80-90% are somewhere inbetween and most will agree with both sides when they make points.

I mean that is literally congruent with what I said, that then got so much pushback. Most folks don’t see the fighter as totally without value in a party with casters, or see casters as “always the correct answer”.

I would posit that the 80-90% you suppose above can be summed up roughly as “the fighter can be really fun, but since all it does is kill stuff good it tends to be unsatisfying for a lot of people, especially at higher levels”, or “I like the fighter, but there is plenty of room in the power scale of 5e to add simple stuff to round it out and give it more of an identity and more specific stuff to leverage in non combat challenges.”


What I’ve never suggested is that you are outnumbered by people who don’t think the fighter has any problems or is already top tier (I imagine this is the opposite extreme?). Just that, of people dissatisfied with the fighter, most don’t seem to see the class as so garbo that it’s a trap to ever play one. It’s just underwhelming compared to what it could be.

And frankly the “casters = correct answer” thing bothers me quite a bit, so my response to you may easily have been more aggro than intended.
I see that mindset as basically antithetical to how I experience the game.

 

[Yaarel]

I think it is because of the aesthetic of the rogue. We constantly shoe-horn them in on the ideas of being fast, sneaky, and disarming traps, and we often forget to consider how magic-users can utterly dominate in those fields.

Also, rogues are weird in that they have a lot of their story in the fighter archetype. And vice-versa

I dont follow the rationale.

Shouldnt the fact that the Wizard can sometimes do fast (teleport), sneaky (invisible), and disarm trap (fly) better than a Rogue, inspire more protests on behalf of the nonmagical Rogue?

Maybe the Rogue is simply competent at noncombat challenges, while the Fighter isnt? So the real problem isnt casters − it is that Fighters have been made defective at noncombat?

 

[Minigiant]

Even if you are ok with the current Fighter, does it hurt you somehow to have additional options?

Setting duplication.

D&D is higher magic than most fantasy settings. At least on the side of good. Big guys can be high magic casters. So if you super special homebreww setting borrows heavily for a popular fantasy setting, it will be lower magic on the players side than base D&D.

Settings like LOTR, ASOIAF, or even WH Fantasy cap out at the 7-9th level range for mortals in every edition since 2000.

This a the dilemma if you want to play the double digit stuff.

 

[nevin]

The options used to be magic items. then we had 3.0 multiclassing. But all the people that liked single classes whined it was too powerful.
Noone liked the christmas tree effect. So now fighters with no magic complain about wizards. If you want low magic find another game. If you want high level play then hand out the magic items, followers gold etc and let everyone stomp around like demigods. But there is no real way to make dnd at high levels perfectly fair and equal. It's just too out of wack no matter what you do. The only reason it can be done at all is DM adjudicating. I don't care if martials have more abilities. I do care if we nerf wizards even more. Just having to memorize your spells everyday before you know what is going on is a huge minus. How about we make the fighter decide if they are going to use weapons that day and if they are going to use armor. No changing the decision later on. The whole argument is silly and has been silly since it started in 2E. The law of unintended consequences every time a class is modified jacks something else up.

 

[nevin]

I am ever surprised as too how much effort is spent to stop Fighters from getting nice things. Imagine the blowback if Fighter fans tried to dump on spellcasters as often and as heavy.

The only one that talked about taking stuff away was from wizards. I just said if your going to make thier magic unreliable then martials need the same penalty. Its already unreliable in that the wizard has to guess what they need at the beginning of the day and usually 1/2 or more of thier spells are never needed or simply useless in the ensuing events. Making the core class ability unreliable is a bit over the top. but nice attempt at putting words in my mouth.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Setting duplication.

Settings like LOTR, ASOIAF, or even WH Fantasy cap out at the 7-9th level range for mortals in every edition since 2000.

This a the dilemma if you want to play the double digit stuff.

You'd need to be already be banning any full casters to play in those settings anyway, a magical Fighter option is just one more in the same boat as 'no, you cannot play a Thri-Keen in this setting, please'. Or a Paladin with Zone of Truth... or anyone with high level hitpoint amounts, etc.

 

[Hussar]

You see a lot of folks claiming that fighters are never worth playing and that casters are always the “correct answer”? Seriously?

Even with most of the other people who want the fighter to be boosted or otherwise express dissatisfaction you’re the only person I can recall ever making such a claim. Even the “sidekick” folks aren’t as extreme as you are in their rhetoric about the fighter.

Well, I wouldn't phrase it that way.

But, in ten years of 5e, I've yet to see a single classed fighter played. And, since it was brought up, does Critical Role have a single classed fighter? It's not like there seems to be bountiful examples from play of single classed fighters. I mean, years ago, I posted a poll that got some response: https://www.enworld.org/threads/pol...-levels-in-a-class.592445/page-4#post-7255673 - and only a quarter (although to be fair, it was the largest single group) of characters had 4 or more levels in fighter. Hardly scientific, absolutely.

But, my experience mirror's @OldSchoolGamerGirl pretty closely. Fighters, as far as any of the groups I've played or DM'd for, might as well not exist.

Then again, I don't see halflings either.