D&D 5E Casters vs Martials: Part 1 - Magic, its most basic components

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
A lot of the posts in this thread are aiming for a bar wayyy past d&d clerics & wizards.
Nope the D&D casters exceed the prowess of legendary and even many mythic casters (maybe matching them on the low end) you missed that casters are more akin to demigod ones they might be the closest analogs (modern casters like Strange and Potter are more potent than legend and myth ironically) but the martial ones are left mundane barely better and often worse than the guy at the gym and basically always worse than the olympic athlete. Certainly worse than the list of Fighters that were listed in the 2e PHB as inspiration. (yup demigod hood included)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
That is why when it was suggested the Fighter wasn't a good chassis, I showed how it could be. You can certainly use the Warlock, but I would think you'd get more resistance is all.
I think the fighter or atleast the fighter/battlemaster could be shifted into a better chassis we saw the potential for it during play test I felt. While yes I think the monk has lots of the right elements too and acknowledging it, hey if the monk is sufficiently not magic and seen as martial. I see your idea entirely as a good thing. (just think monk needs lifted a bit too, especially in the last 2 tiers fo play)

I want to raise all martial boats effectiveness of course.
 
Last edited:


No, you nailed it. If WotC or a player came to the table with a variant that allowed martials to rival casters (as they are), by having super-type features to rival spells, I would maybe entertain it for an adventure or two (just like when I used to play superhero RPGs). But, otherwise, no, it is not my cup of tea. Frankly, I wouldn't even mind helping with the design if someone wanted to tackle it because I enjoy game design!

Well, to be fair, it isn't so much that I don't think you could implement that way, I would simply prefer to see it done differently so people (like myself LOL) wouldn't just view it as another form of magic (especially when 5E already has too much overlap IMO!).

Yeah, this isn't so cool. Kudos for being the rare poster where mythic martials "aren't their cup of tea" but acknowledges that right now we have mythic Wizards and more mundane martials and is also ok with truely mythic martials being in the game as an option. And can have a polite conversation about it.

But, why should the design be so heavily influenced by people like you that aren't that enthusiastic about having it in their game and might occasionally use it in a one off? Doesn't make any sense.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
No, you nailed it. If WotC or a player came to the table with a variant that allowed martials to rival casters (as they are), by having super-type features to rival spells, I would maybe entertain it for an adventure or two (just like when I used to play superhero RPGs). But, otherwise, no, it is not my cup of tea. Frankly, I wouldn't even mind helping with the design if someone wanted to tackle it because I enjoy game design!
Personally I think the idea of having "a lot of classes and Settings and DMs deeming which ones are at the table" is the best way to do D&D.

I wish more D&D fans would be okay with "Not a fan of it but it should exist".
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Well, I liked most of your reply except this:
Yeah, this isn't so cool.

But, anyway...

But, why should the design be so heavily influenced by people like you that aren't that enthusiastic about having it in their game and might occasionally use it in a one off? Doesn't make any sense.
Mostly because I think it would lead to even more widespread acceptance? A big issue such a variant would face, IMO, would be the "just more magic", so by avoiding implementing it in such a fashion you avoid that problem. If you are just making it for you, then sure who cares, right? But if WotC was to put out the product, it probably wouldn't matter I suppose because a lot of people seem to buy new stuff regardless of how well-designed or balanced it really is. 🤷‍♂️

I had a player who LOVED anime/manga and comics/superheroes. He custom made creatures and such for games he wanted to run all the time. Even though his stuff is totally over the top IMO (most are easily CR 20+) because I wouldn't use them, doesn't mean I didn't enjoy helping him to keep things balanced, even for his really high power style.

But he also is the type of player who enjoys playing evil PCs, which the other people at the table aren't so keen on for the type of game we want to play and it was too disruptive. He wasn't able to do what he wanted and wasn't enjoying himself as much as the others, unfortunately, and ultimately that led to a parting of ways.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Personally I think the idea of having "a lot of classes and Settings and DMs deeming which ones are at the table" is the best way to do D&D.

I wish more D&D fans would be okay with "Not a fan of it but it should exist".
FWIW, the only issue I've run into as DM, is this often has led to a player buying a book, like Tasha's, and then me having to explain how I am not allowing it. Of course, at this point, I doubt anything new for 5E will make it into any game I run. I am always hoping to be surprised, but seeing the direction WotC is taking D&D, it isn't likely. :(

Anyway, since this was originally a "part 1" thread, I'm anxious to see what comes up in "part 2" :)
 


Mostly because I think it would lead to even more widespread acceptance? A big issue such a variant would face, IMO, would be the "just more magic", so by avoiding implementing it in such a fashion you avoid that problem.

That would be great but it doesn't seem likely, so all you are doing is potentially blocking the full solution set for those that really want this concept as part of their regular campaigns. You yourself point out that even if this mythic martial is done with your suggestions for implementation, you'll only use it occassionally for one offs away from your regular games. So if the final result is 5% worse off to those that actually care about this concept so that people who don't really care for this concept can use it a couple times, is that a good trade?

IMO you have several types of POV:

1) don't want mythical martials anywhere near their D&D games even as an option or feel like current martials are already as mythical as the Wizard as there is no problem -- non starter

2) people that are ok with it as an option but don't really care for it much, and even if it is implemented in a way that doesn't rub them the wrong way still won't use it much (you) -- I mean these people shouldn't be utterly dismissed I guess but I don't want them driving the design?

3) people who really like the concept but need it implemented in a way that doesn't rub them the wrong way. If it was implemented right, then they would love to play this character and incorporate it into their campaigns as a regular option -- I'm skeptical that there are many people like this. Most people that advocate for this when you push them, "implemented the right way" usually means not mythical and equal to the Wizard. If this is a large group then sure, worth a discussion.

4) people who really love the concept, would be overjoyed to have this as a regular part of their game, and would love to put the same kind of creative design energy into exploring how to make this happen as casters typically get.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
That would be great but it doesn't seem likely, so all you are doing is potentially blocking the full solution set for those that really want this concept as part of their regular campaigns. You yourself point out that even if this mythic martial is done with your suggestions for implementation, you'll only use it occassionally for one offs away from your regular games. So if the final result is 5% worse off to those that actually care about this concept so that people who don't really care for this concept can use it a couple times, is that a good trade?
No, it probably isn't likely.

(bold added)
I don't know, I expect (or at least hope!) WotC would be better able to answer that question.

IMO you have several types of POV:

1) don't want mythical martials anywhere near their D&D games even as an option or feel like current martials are already as mythical as the Wizard as there is no problem -- non starter

2) people that are ok with it as an option but don't really care for it much, and even if it is implemented in a way that doesn't rub them the wrong way still won't use it much (you) -- I mean these people shouldn't be utterly dismissed I guess but I don't want them driving the design?

3) people who really like the concept but need it implemented in a way that doesn't rub them the wrong way. If it was implemented right, then they would love to play this character and incorporate it into their campaigns as a regular option -- I'm skeptical that there are many people like this. Most people that advocate for this when you push them, "implemented the right way" usually means not mythical and equal to the Wizard. If this is a large group then sure, worth a discussion.

4) people who really love the concept, would be overjoyed to have this as a regular part of their game, and would love to put the same kind of creative design energy into exploring how to make this happen as casters typically get.
I think that is an admirable summary.

FWIW, it the 3rd option happened, and it really was done well, I could see myself adopting it when I am in the mood for superheroic-type games. It isn't often, but it happens. :)
 

FWIW, it the 3rd option happened, and it really was done well, I could see myself adopting it when I am in the mood for superheroic-type games. It isn't often, but it happens. :)

Not to beat this horse, but that's not the 3rd POV, that's number 2.

The 3rd POV means if it was really well done and catered to your implementation, you would adopt it as a standard option for your D&D games.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with being a #2 and I appreciate your engagement. However, I do think #2s shouldn't be catered to in a mythical hero design process at the expense of #4s (and #3s for that matter).
 


As they stand, no there isn't. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be made. And having a PC who at 15th level has a subclass feature "Juggernaut" (you can smash through anything) and 18th subclass feature "Level the Field" (which you can slice a mountain in half or something) would seem pretty darn "fantastic and superheroic" IMO.


Yeah, I miss having more powerful feats with level prerequisites...
Ok.. "Level the field" is a great name for such an ability.
 


DND_Reborn

Legend
New Solution: Spellcasters get one spell known per spell level. Because I don't want superheroic spellcasters.
Warlocks and Sorcerers would LOVE that. :D

If you don't want superheroic spellcasters, do it.

Just like if you want superheroic martials, do it.

No one is stopping you, on either account. ;)
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Ok.. "Level the field" is a great name for such an ability.

Digs through my martial practices... and finds

  1. *Breaching Ram / Splitting the Mountain -- Dungeoneering or Athletics or Endurance→Passwall[12]
Breaching Ram, examining the barrier with care and applies perception to find weaknesses you hammer it with mighty blows, that undermine it further with final roar you spend a healing surge and bull rush attack you crumble what seemed an impossible to pass wall.

There could be more to it though obviously... Breaching ram use may well allow one to go through then collapse behind you and it doesn't leave the barriers structure intact. (unless the structure was pretty slapdash in the first place)


edit: added details
 
Last edited:

HammerMan

Legend
A lot of the posts in this thread are aiming for a bar wayyy past d&d clerics & wizards. Magic casters in multiple non-d&d works of fiction have been pointed to as a bar that needs to be met and at one point someone pointed to the feats performed by a bunch of demigods saying they were an example of mundane martials.
please tell us any power that has been requested that is NOT able to be done with spells?
 

HammerMan

Legend
Mostly because I think it would lead to even more widespread acceptance? A big issue such a variant would face, IMO, would be the "just more magic", so by avoiding implementing it in such a fashion you avoid that problem.
I disagree. Anyone who WOULD complain that it was just magic will just find a new complaint.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
OK I forgot this
1640354351303.png
 


Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top