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

[Remathilis]

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?

The only issue I could see (if we're using the model of exposure to x = y power) is the idea that it's based around specific triggers that may or may not happen in game. Would that thusly mean the PC is barred from taking that power?

For example: if the fighter wants to take bladeproof skin but has to be exposed to stoneskin and nobody has or can cast it on them, is he forbidden from taking it? Does the DM rig a situation where an NPC or magic item can cast it on them? Would their powers be limited by the foes they fight and allies thru keep? Or do we have it away again as "somewhere in the world a wizard cast stoneskin and the magical particles drifted on the wind until they touched the fighter"? (Or better: I don't have to explain it, I just get damage reduction).

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Blue mage. Always thought that was a cool idea.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There is no strawman, and you know it.

There is a strawman, and I know it. That's why I said it was a strawman.

Again, I have no problem if you give and take. Remove the "ability score improvement/take a feat" that fighters get more of than any other class, and plug in class abilities. I'll start, at sixth level, you can sacrifice your "ability score improvement" and instead take the reverse weapon ability. On a successful attack against you, you can use the backside of any melee weapon to block and have the opponent reroll or you can use the backside of your weapon to make an attack of opportunity. You may use this ability once every round.

Or, here is another one that gets to the core of the problem:

At sixth level, you can sacrifice your "ability score improvement" and instead take the strength is king ability. This ability to allows you to replace your strength ability with any one other ability used in skill checks. For example, you can replace all skill checks that require wisdom with strength. (So your animal handling could be through your ability to control the animal, your perception could be because you you move things around, your insight could be simply flexing and watching reactions, etc.)

There you go. An idea.

So basically creating martial only feats. Then calling them not feats. Which is completely different from the idea I was responding to before, which you tried to use to accuse me of only wanting to increase in power.

So, your example was totally justified.... except you immediately back track and create something entirely different.

Don't like the Strength is King ability, not because I'm a filthy powergamer who can't give things up, but because that is basically the barbarian ability, and I like that for a Barbarian. Also, Barbarians don't get feats at level 6, so they can't participate in this.

The Reverse weapon ability is bad, not because I'm a filthy powergamer always grasping for more, but because making an attack against someone who enters your reach is already a feat and a battlemaster manuever, as is using your reaction to grant disadvantage or increase your AC (which are effectively the same thing). Now, maybe you aren't meaning this to be a reaction, and it is once per turn for every enemies turn, do either of those things, in which case it is a decent idea. But my gut says you just forgot to clarify it was a reaction because you wouldn't want the fighter able to make an attack against every creature that comes into reach of their weapon. I'm willing to be wrong about that though

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are literally saying "old and mysterious forces" is more flavorful than "mysterious forces".

What? Young mysterious forces don't get to play around and offer powers to people? Is it like a legal drinking age? "Must be three centuries old to invest power in a mortal"?

GOO have a distinct Lovecraftian flavor as the default, and you know it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But you have to put something in the book, like what is done for casters (particularly in the subclass sections).

The moment I publish a book, I'll let you know.

Sorcerers, for example, have a vague core explanation that is expanded upon in the subclasses. Warlocks too. That's what I'm asking for. At least make it  look like the class is there for reasons beyond jealousy of the casters. Supernatural things need an explanation in the book, somewhere.

And we've given it to you, six times, seven times, eight times. We've given you the explanation. All we haven't done is published a book and sent you a first edition copy. If your entire complaint is "none of your ideas are valid until you are published" then go away and wait for someone to publish something. If it is "you haven't given an explanation" then I will one last time list the myriad of explanations we have given. I can even type it in Homebrewery and add a little copyright blurb to make it look all official and published for you.

 

[Gammadoodler]

4e designers assumed people would create their own narratives to explain the mechanics.

One of the strengths of 4e is, it is designed so that the narrative had little or no impact on the mechanics. It was easy to reflavor 4e in any way. This customizability of flavor allowed so many character concepts that are difficult or impossible in other editions.

Unfortunately, there were a few places where the default narrative was less satisfying. Many players had no interest in authoring their own flavor to explain the mechanics. They considered it the job of the designers to this. This dissatisfaction was corrosive to longterm of 4e.

Narrative matters.

Unless you ask anyone to provide any concrete details to explain how.the mechanics of spellcasting work.

Where does the fire in a fireball come from, what do the components do to produce it and direct it, why is it the size and shape that it is, how can it work underwater or in a vacuum, how is it impossible to screw up delivering the components, why is it that only some people can do it and not others.

All thay stuff goes completely unaddressed except for some vague reference to the "Weave" which is equally bereft of any real narrative justification beyond "it exists to justify magic".

Here's a test, let's say half the spells that have been published to date are excluded from One D&D, and the remainder are half as effective, and casters that get spells can cast half as many, and when they do, they expend hp to cast them..

do we expect to get a narrative justification for this?
Has the Weave weakened or changed across all settings?
Or is it just a game design choice that game designers made and now thats just how magic 'works' for that version of D&D.

The same would be true of any new abilities given to martials. Whatever they are, it will just be how martials are in that version of D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The moment I publish a book, I'll let you know.



And we've given it to you, six times, seven times, eight times. We've given you the explanation. All we haven't done is published a book and sent you a first edition copy. If your entire complaint is "none of your ideas are valid until you are published" then go away and wait for someone to publish something. If it is "you haven't given an explanation" then I will one last time list the myriad of explanations we have given. I can even type it in Homebrewery and add a little copyright blurb to make it look all official and published for you.

What I want is an agreement that the explanation will have to appear in the published product or homebrew, along with the actual rules for the class. That the narrative isn't just something made up on the spot when someone asks, because it doesn't matter to you.

 

[Yaarel]

Right, but you started with talking about you. What if the story we like DOES appeal to 70% of all DnD players, but not to you?

If the majority of players likes something that I dont, then that sucks. It happens.

For example, I hated how the 2014 Eladrin was +2 Dexterity rather than +2 Charisma. I am super happy that 2024 will let players do whatever abilities they want for whatever species. So far, 2024 makes the backgrounds responsible for boosting the abilities. I can work with that.

I still hate how the core rules bake in the gods of the Forgotten Realms setting. Xanathars with its nontheistic description for the Cleric gave me some relief, and some more narrative flexibility to accommodate other settings. I hope the 2024 Cleric class will make nontheistic sacred traditions part of core.

On the other hand, I love the 5e Wizard, the fullcaster Bard, and to my surprise the 5e Paladin that is highly magical and incredibly versatile flavorwise.

And so on. Sometimes the majority likes something that I do too. Sometimes not.

Are we allowed to move forward with that story then? Because we've given example after example of things we like and can tolerate, but you keep pushing for something else because YOU don't like it and can't tolerate it.

I hope there is a consensus that mechanics need to cohere with a decent and versatile narrative.

Heh, certain explanations which seem like, "everything is gibberish anyway, therefore we dont need a narrative", fails to be a satisfactory narrative.

I dont think we need to decide on the specific narrative(s) right now. But we should start brainstorming for them.

The Fighter narrative is a thorny challenge, because 1, many players demand nonmagic, and 2, it requires magic to function at high tiers.

And why can't that work for a spell effect being concentrated on by a spellcaster? Why can't accrued damage break the amount of energy put into the spell to maintain it from a 5th level slot? Doesn't that represent an energy source maintaining the effect and stress exhausting it?

The section in the 2024 Players Handbook that describes how magic and spellcasting works, can help make sense of how Fighters can interact with spell effects. Spells work according to "slots", something like descrete quantum packets of magical energy. It seems reasonable to say the higher the slot the more magical energy is pulled into the spell effect, then draw narrative implications from that.

At the same time, the Wall of Force is force, not ice, and its spell description about how it can be disrupted needs to be coherent with the fact that it is made out of force.

 

[Chaosmancer]

GOO have a distinct Lovecraftian flavor as the default, and you know it.

So, "I woke up one night in a cold sweat, with a mysterious rune nearby and now I can use magic" is totally fine. Perfectly explained. It has a full narrative weight.

"I woke up one morning in a cold sweat, and the world seemed clearer and now I can cut the wind" is utter bollocks. Nothing is explained and it is completely without reason, and therefore it cannot be done.

And yet... I did basically the exact same thing. You just feel like you know the story of the mysterious rune, but since you aren't familiar with the correct literature, the world seeming to be more clear doesn't mean anything to you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What I want is an agreement that the explanation will have to appear in the published product or homebrew, along with the actual rules for the class. That the narrative isn't just something made up on the spot when someone asks, because it doesn't matter to you.

Yes, if I ever write a class, I will use flavor text to make it seem cooler. There is your agreement.