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

Status
Not open for further replies.
So despite similar types of spells, each caster gets their magic from a different source of power. If those sources of power weren't defined beyond "mysterious forces" could you still define a difference between them without resorting to mechanics?

I'm not saying it's good design but most classes do not have tight themes for their abilities even if they fluff them that way. Clerics of god X get some differences but at the end of the day their biggest class feature is the same spell list, yes Sorcerers get some stuff but their biggest class feature is the same spell list, etc. D&D doesn't seem that concerned about it in it's current form.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I actually had to make it up. The game just gives them all spell casting. It might as well be “mysterious forces”.
Since you don't apparently own a PHB, let me help

PHB:

In the worlds of D&D, words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own. The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain. Bards say that the multiverse was spoken into existence, that the words of the gods gave it shape, and that echoes of these primordial Words of Creation still resound throughout the cosmos. The music of bards is an attempt to snatch and harness those echoes, subtly woven into their spells and powers
...
Magic is a part of every sorcerer, suffusing body, mind, and spirit with a latent power that waits to be tapped. Some sorcerers wield magic that springs from an ancient bloodline infused with the magic of dragons. Others carry a raw, uncontrolled magic within them, a chaotic storm that manifests in unexpected ways.
...
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron's behalf.
...
Wizards live and die by their spells. Everything else is secondary. They learn new spells as they experiment and grow in experience. They can also learn them from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic.

HammerMan:


7d2869c459889559ef69729733bdb4c8.jpg
 


Although, thinking about it, perhaps the reason these things are not provided is so that each campaign setting (and each DM) would have the freedom to come up with their own explanations.

Certainly magic is supposed to function different between Toril, Krynn, and Athas, even if the mechanics are essentially the same.
I prefer the default setting explanations to be in a sidebar. There and clear, but easy to ignore if using the core rules for a different setting.
 

Yep, when it was pointed out that monks
Do you see the problem? The "anything that isn't the physics of reality earth is magic" stance is not shared. You keep responding under that assumption, and people keep misinterpreting you. And then you misinterpret them.

Stop it.
I share that stance. And that's fine. Just say in the book that its a magical world and everyone has magic in them. It would change the default assumptions of D&D, but that's fine too.

But you have to be explicit about that. And 5e isn't.
 

Although, thinking about it, perhaps the reason these things are not provided is so that each campaign setting (and each DM) would have the freedom to come up with their own explanations.

Certainly magic is supposed to function different between Toril, Krynn, and Athas, even if the mechanics are essentially the same.
Well, the Weave is in 5e intended to apply to all campaign settings, even if I would have preferred it to be Realms only.
 

I'm not saying it's good design but most classes do not have tight themes for their abilities even if they fluff them that way. Clerics of god X get some differences but at the end of the day their biggest class feature is the same spell list, yes Sorcerers get some stuff but their biggest class feature is the same spell list, etc. D&D doesn't seem that concerned about it in it's current form.
I don't think it's good design, and continuing that idea through a mythic martial class is not in my opinion good design either.
 

Because they popped into my head, a couple of things a better fighter could do:
  • Reaction movement in response to reflex attacks and ranged attacks, bonus distance if they go prone, so they can dive behind tables to dodge breath weapons and arrows
  • Reaction to do the same to an ally
 


Because they popped into my head, a couple of things a better fighter could do:
  • Reaction movement in response to reflex attacks and ranged attacks, bonus distance if they go prone, so they can dive behind tables to dodge breath weapons and arrows
  • Reaction to do the same to an ally

Yep, LNO does that. Active defense (via an Act/React action dichotomy in my system) is something DND doesn't explore very much, and Ive found its really valuable not just for mechanically embedding actions like those, but also for enabling simultaneous low-HP and big ass damage output.

Active defense balances against high damage,

That means low-HP characters aren't just being one-shotted constantly as effective damage will be in a reasonable range on average, but players can still get a meaningful kick out of rolling a pile of dice for big booms.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top