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

[Chaosmancer]

Cool. This doesnt actually answer ny question, but lets go with it. Swords can cut that or something.

Seriously. It's all BS. You just have to apply enough of it wherever needed to get the mechanical effect desired.

Easy enough to explain why swords cut it. Again, this is something that has been done in literature a thousand times.

Swords are swung with intent, the intent to cut, the intent to kill, the intent to protect. What is cutting a psychorecpetive force isn't the physical sword, but the intent of the sword cut.

There you go, easily explained and fits in with the technobabble

 

[Yaarel]

Did the Greeks have a well-documented understanding for how these components combined with some mutterings could manifest unbreakable walls of diet gravity?

The Medieval Period had stuff like that. For example, the celestial spheres that kept the planets in orbit were described as being made out of physical but immaterial "force". Meanwhile, worldviews like astrology were taken for granted.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you want it to be a game that I would play, it must have a narrative that I like.

This means a default narrative that satisfies 70% or more of the D&D players.

And this default must be a light touch that is easy to ignore and override with ones own setting-specific narrative, to satisfy the remain D&D players.

Let's say we don't care if it is a game you would play, but a game we would play. Does the narrative still have to appeal to you, or is it okay that is just appeals to us?

Those scifi narratives are using magic advanced technology to affect those force fields.

Ah yes, the advanced technology of being hit by a very big rock. Much technology in big, fast moving rock. Or have you never seen a sci-fi show where their forcefields are damages by asteroids?

 

[Yaarel]

Let's say we don't care if it is a game you would play, but a game we would play. Does the narrative still have to appeal to you, or is it okay that is just appeals to us?

I said, it has to appeal to at least 70% of ALL D&D players.

By appeal, I mean most players either love it or can tolerate it.

... A sci-fi show where their forcefields are damages by asteroids?

With me, there is no need for sarcasm. I can follow reasonable arguments reasonably.

In those shows, the forcefields require an energy source to maintain, which stress can exhaust. Generally, the entire forcefield fails if running out of energy.

Something along this narrative can be thought thru and offered for the narrative of the game.

 

[Yaarel]

Easy enough to explain why swords cut it. Again, this is something that has been done in literature a thousand times.

Swords are swung with intent, the intent to cut, the intent to kill, the intent to protect. What is cutting a psychorecpetive force isn't the physical sword, but the intent of the sword cut.

There you go, easily explained and fits in with the technobabble

To produce an effect via "intention" is by definition magic. If manifesting the intention directly, it is Psionic magic.

If the goal is to minimize Fighter magic, it might help to focus on the mage and the limitations of a magical effect that a mage produces.

 

[Gammadoodler]

To produce an effect via "intention" is by definition magic. If manifesting the intention directly, it is Psionic magic.

If the goal is to minimize Fighter magic, it might help to focus on the mage and the limitations of a magical effect that a mage produces.

1. Your first statement isn't true.

2. If you are willing to ascribe every fantastical effect to 'magic' and then refuse to give fighters any magic, of course there will be problems in giving the fighter fantastical abilities.

3. You could just decide not to do this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why do I need to justify what I want but other people can say what they want?

I have no problem with what you want. I just don't see a path where WotC is going to provide it, for the reasons I and @Hussar have discussed. This is far more likely to be addressed by 3pp or homebrew IMO.

 

[James Gasik]

An earlier topic of discussion reminded me of something I'd seen before, and I went looking and found this. Spelltouched Feats are from Unearthed Arcana (3.5 version), and they represent the ability for someone to internalize magic after having been exposed to it enough times. Here's an example:

Residual Rebound [Spelltouched]​

Sometimes spells cast at you rebound on the caster instead.

Prerequisite​

Exposure to spell resistance or spell turning spell.

Benefit​

If you roll a natural 20 on a save against a targeted spell, it turns back on the caster as if affected by a spell turning spell. Unlike spell turning, however, the Residual Rebound feat potentially functions against touch range spells as well. Residual Rebound only works on targeted spells that allow a saving throw, so a fireball won't rebound, nor will a power word stun.

So thinking about it, would something like this be acceptable for our "more fantastic warrior"? The idea that exposure to magical energies allows you to perform fantastic feats?

 

[Micah Sweet]

We have low level wizards druids bards ect. They grow in power and versatility as they level. A mythic warrior would look a lot like them.

So it would resemble a full caster class? Have abilities on par with low level spells? Are you thinking of something like a gish but with abilities instead of spells? Or more like a monk? What kind of base powers would they have, or are there a lot of choices and decision points? I'm looking to get into the details of how this would work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean GOO doesn’t name an entity it’s just “something old and mysterious “. Even fey and infernal pacts are “something vague fey and something vague demon or devil.”

The patrons are as vague or as spesfic as the campaign dictates.

All of those things are more flavorful than "mysterious forces".