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

[Minigiant]

I like how WARHAMMER does fantasy.

The Emperor Karl Franz and all the Dwarves kings are just normal warriors of the elite of their race. They can't superjump nor parry spells. But due to their rank, diplomacy, and skill earn the right to weild artifact weapons.

Bretonnia's King is literally a Oath of the Ancients Paladin.

Tyrion is a badass elf due to being from a long lineage of badass elves. Like his brother Teclis and cousin Makekith, they are amazing by bloodlines.

Lizardmen were made epic.

Queek Headtaker is a genetic freak of just playing the numbers until you random high stats.

And Orcs just get bigger as they win fights.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I would want an explanation for all those things, not that its likely to happen.

To answer your fireball questions:

1. Perhaps the Elemental Plane of Fire?

2. Sympathetic/thematic connection, like the words and gestures.

3. The strength of the magical connection affects the dimensions, as do the exact words and gestures used.

4. It shouldn't work under those conditions, and having it do so is a problem with the rules.

5. It should be possible to screw it up, and having it not be possible is a problem with the rules.

6. Casters have exhaustively studied the exact words, gestures and materials needed for the spell effect (or had them impressed into their minds by a deity or patron), so they know what to do to cast the spell. Those who haven't done those things, can't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Your disregard for the narrative part of a role playing game in favor of mechanics you like saddens me.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Cool, so can you stop harping on people to make an explanation YOU like, while dismissing the multitude of explanations that have been given?

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.

We've brainstormed them. We've given six to eight explanations in this thread. Why is that not good enough? Why do we need more? Are you just offended that some people are tired of answering after you've been given explanation after explanation?

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.

Green Lantern's shield that shatters like glass when punched is made out of willpower. We accept this narrative and it makes perfect sense. Therefore, physical objects made of "force" can be shattered with enough opposing force. This also makes narrative sense.

Unless you are somehow claiming that force cannot disrupt force, despite the only way currently to counter a wall of force being a disintegration beam that does FORCE damage and is a FORCE then I cannot comprehend what the issue is here other than you don't like it.

 

[Remathilis]

".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.

This is the Spellplague. You literally just asked to describe the Spellplague. Mystra's death caused the Weave to tear and magic as it was known was torn asunder with it. When wizards did regain magic, it was in the form of ADEU powers and rituals.

Or maybe you mean Dragonlance 5th Age, when the Gods abandoned Krynn again and took arcane and divine magic with them, and when mortals learned how to channel magical forces through sorcery and mysticism.

Hmm.. I think changing the rules of magic has been heralded with in game explanations of how and why it happened. I would expect that any additional changes would have similar story explanations.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

Ok. So you don't like the idea. Fair enough.

 

[Yaarel]

"I don't want fighter's casting spells that then Wizards can write in their spellbooks" I want a spell-less fighter capable of extraordinary feats.

Yes. 5e has magic that isnt spellcasting. Dragonbreath is a good example, and there are many others.

That can be because of a dozen reasons that we have layed out. Special physics, mystical training to harness the soul, psychic emantions of intent, the narrative weight of legends warping the physical world.

I am fine with "mystical training to harness the soul". At the same time, this feels moreorless identical with "ki" and with "psionic". Which is ok with me, but is a flavor that may appeal less to other players with regard to the Fighter concept.

If you wan to call these things magic, feel free, but this insistence of anything that isn't E=MC^2 and F= MxA is magic just seems to cause confusion and debate, because many of us feel like if we say "yes you can do magic" then it becomes spells and wizards can do it too.

I insist this all magic for the same reason that Psionic is magic.

By any name, it is magic.

But there are different kinds of magic, with different kinds of flavors.

 

[Clint_L]

"I've used all my resources and am almost at 50% hp" isn't a challenge to you? What would be a challenge then? Dying?

Yeah, I would say that walking out into the middle of a room and inviting 10 enemies to have at you, knowing that you are in no danger, indicates no challenge. And, as I pointed out, and showed you the math, using action surge and second wind (what a cheater!) only speeds up the battle by two rounds, but the same result is inevitable.

What do you consider not a challenge? I get the impression you think a poorly built, geared and played fighter should be able to walk into the middle of a group of enemies, fart, and they all die.

For a level 20 group? Then what is 10 CR 5's? Death? Can then even possibly take on 10 CR 10's?

A single level 20 should not be able to solo 10 CR10 opponents without careful planning and circumstances. If your stance is that this hypothetical poorly geared, built, and tactically challenged level 20 fighter is weak unless he can easily solo 10 Devas at once, then...yeah. You don't want to play D&D, you want to play the Goku game. You should home-brew that, and have fun.

Interesting fact. Wanna bet that evocation wizard I made to deal with the Sphinx can handle it much easier?

Probably - it's an ideal situation for AoE attacks. Though it kind of comes down to initiative and which spells they took, because if they lose initiative and the scenario is the same (+2 AC is the only magic item, so lets give them bracers of defence) then they are looking at taking on the order of 176 damage before they can do anything. Oh, and which core class features is this evocation wizard not allowed to use, lest they be accused of making it too easy? Also...didn't you suggest earlier that giving a sub-class is kind of cheating, too? Oh yeah, you did. Those goalposts keep moving. But I'll give that to you, since taking a sub-class is required.

You didn't do actual math, you started changing things. You demanded they use resources, you demanded they have a higher con, you wanted them to have feats. Sure, all reasonable things, but it was because without those things, it was obvious what was going to happen.

No, and I'm beginning to think that you have a very selective memory, but fortunately for us all the posts are still there so we can check [*checks*]. Right, so what I actually wrote (we are trying to argue the actual facts, right?), is that you would expect them to have done those things...but to go along with your scenario I didn't have the fighter take any of them. Just left them at 16 con and no feats. It's odd to me that you missed this, since I wrote it very clearly and then reiterated the point several times: I went along with your set-up even though it is terrible for the fighter. I knew it wouldn't make a difference.

But the fact that you keep insisting I changed things is interesting; it suggests that you prefer spin to, you know, actually addressing the facts as presented, even though I let you have all your preconditions except the ones that could not happen in game (i.e. instead of your rough estimate of HP and used the actual HP as determined by fixed HP levelling, and gave the fighter a sub-class, though made it the plainest one to stay in the spirit of this fighter being awful).

And then just to humour you even further, I even took away the resources and still showed showed you that the result is the same. But now you write:

without those things, it was obvious what was going to happen.

Nope. Wrong. You are now in the reality denying phase of losing an argument. Go review the math. No action surge, no healing wind, no tactics, nothing, and the fighter finishes with 56 HP, or 92 if they want to spend a bit more time. So your example shows that basically the worst built and played level 20 fighter can spend no resources and walk away from the CR-rating deadly encounter you set-up.

yes, taking a subclass is mandatory. But which subclass isn't. I don't know why people keep thinking that not having a subclass ability used in a fight suddenly means I'm breaking the rules. You chose the weakest one? Why not the Banneret which has zero abilities that could activate in that scenario? Or the Cavalier who only has a random AC increasing ability that would activate?

And again. All uses of Action surge. All uses of Second Wind. And 50% of their hp. Not what I would call an "easy" victory.

See above. I took the champion, the plainest sub-class. I have no idea what a Banneret is; they are not in the 5e rules. A cavalier is probably the worst possible choice for this encounter, but even without a mount (kind of the whole point of the sub-class, but whatever) they still survive, though admittedly with fewer HP.

Hey...why did you take an evoker wizard for your counter-example? Just wondering - you seem to think sub-class shouldn't be discussed except when it suits your argument, it seems.

The point was that it was claimed that fighter's don't even struggle to handle "trash mobs", never. Not even once.

No, that wasn't his point, his point was that in his experience, high level fighters don't struggle against trash mobs. I believe it, given that his experience is based on actual gameplay where those fighters are presumably normally geared and built, and played by people who are actually trying. Given that your scenario allowed none of that and the fighter still came out on top quite easily, I believe him.

Being at 56 hp is losing 67% of their health. Again, in what world is that not a struggle? Remember, I was assuming that the fighter never missed a single attack, in 40 attacks they never rolled less than a 7. Does that sound realistic to you?

Okay, we're shifting goalposts again. So let's math it out. We're not giving this fighter a magic weapon, because what are the odds - they're only level 20, after all - but even so their average damage/round comes out to 41.86. That's factoring in misses, of course.

A paladin will be in much the same situation with or without spells and smiting. The druid without shapeshift though? They are likely fine. They may struggle, as Druid's have a hard time with direct damage spells, but they do have many options.

We could math it out, but the paladin does indeed come out about the same. The druid dies. Badly and quickly. Unless they use their magic to escape, but that wasn't the point.

No, my point was that they couldn't do it without a struggle

I think you really need to clarify what you mean by "struggle," because your example actually shows that a poorly played, geared, and built fighter could handle that situation with no sweat. Like, how many HP does the fighter need to finish with for it to count as "without a struggle." 100%? 80%?

Minimal gear? Do you think that there is some gear you could give them that would let them get through that fight with more than 70% of their hit points?

Ummm...yeah? Level 20? Sword and board fighter? Let's give them AC 26 and a +3 weapon. Yup, that does it. Easily - they finish with 81% health and could pretty much top themselves off with a second wind except that is dirty, dirty cheating, apparently. (It would probably be higher because now they are killing an extra Orog every few rounds but, meh).

What world do you live in that 50% down on hp and with no abilities left, the fighter won't even need to rest? Seriously, you are acting like being half dead from a single fight against low level enemies isn't a big deal. Yes, it shouldn't be that CR 2 enemies nearly killed my level 20 character, even if they are crappily built.

Like, I'm honestly flabberghasted. What state do you expect a PC to be in after a hard fight? 3 hp and a lingering curse of death on their bloodline?

Okay, so we finish with the crux of it. Yes, I expect that soloing a deadly encounter should be a struggle. This isn't. All you've shown is that a terribly geared, played, and built fighter can handle your sample encounter no problem, and, contrary to what you keep asserting, also do so without using a single special ability, if they want to spend a few more rounds at it.

That's the issue with this entire thread: it is built on unrealistic power fantasies about what fighters, specifically, should be like at high levels, which is, apparently, basically Goku (i.e. can easily solo 10 CR10 opponents). That isn't D&D, and certainly isn't anything like a reasonable proposition for OneD&D. It isn't "threadcrapping!" when an obviously unrealistic proposal is put in the wrong sub-forum.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Your disregard for the narrative part of a role playing game in favor of mechanics you like saddens me.

Your repeated assumption I disregard the narrative infuriates me. But fine, you know what? I'll cave. I'll do one last definitive take on this. And you know what, I'll even dress it up nice and in the narrative for you.

At the dawn of time, when the first people of each race breathed in the air of the world, they had Champions. For the world was a dangerous place, full of evils and monsters beyond the strength of the common peasant. To survive, these people needed warriors, fighters, brave souls who would stand against all that threatened them with the full might of their people's survival on their shoulders. And echoing into the future, these champions still persist. They take up sword and shield, axe and hammer, bow and arrow, but always they stride forth to do battle.

Scholars and Sages debate what sets these Warriors apart from the common man. Some claim it is their intense will and determination, which warps the natural fields of magic to empower them beyond mortal limits. Others claim it is a descended soul from the first champions of each race, burning like brilliant sparks and pushing the flesh beyond its limits. Kingdoms and Empires enact special training regimes which seem to occassionally awaken such warriors to their potential, and claim it is these special techniques alone which create greatness. The Bards, speakers of the First Words, claim it is purely that these men and women become living legends, empowered by the faith and fervor of the people who spread their name, and using the weight of the words to move the world around them.

But the Fighter? They do not care why they can do what they do. Why they can does not matter, instead what matters is their goal and their determination to succeed no matter what

There you go Micah, slap a Copyright 2023 and written by Chaosmancer on it. We have officially written a narrative explanation for you. And everyone else? Feel free the next time someone asks for a narrative explanation, just quote this at them.

 

[Incenjucar]

Every single part of the D&D multiverse is magic. The worlds are made of magic floating in magic crystal spheres attached to magical transitive planes and the mortals are all powered by magic souls and animas.

Physics are magic in D&D.